NRA and Companies Duel Over Gun Legislation
The rights of employers in Florida, Georgia and Alabama to control the presence of guns on their property and to set the terms and conditions of the workplace are in the crosshairs of the National Rifle Association. Bills pending in those states are among the latest in the powerful gun...
February 28, 2006 at 07:00 PM
5 minute read
The rights of employers in Florida, Georgia and Alabama to control the presence of guns on their property and to set the terms and conditions of the workplace are in the crosshairs of the National Rifle Association.
Bills pending in those states are among the latest in the powerful gun lobby's fight to ensure employees the right to keep guns in their vehicles while at work.
Four states already have such laws on the books, and legislation is pending in seven others. But Florida–a high profile, trendsetter state–is emerging as the key battleground between the NRA and anti-gun groups led by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Florida was the first state to pass NRA-backed legislation permitting almost anyone except convicted felons to carry concealed weapons, and 35 states followed.
“They intend to follow the same pattern with the take-your-guns-to-work bill,” says Brian Siebel, senior attorney for the Brady Center's Legal Action Project.
Safety First
Identical bills introduced last year in the Florida House and Senate are poised for action when the legislature reconvenes in March. Those bills prohibit employers and other property owners from making any rules banning guns from locked vehicles in a parking lot or garage, and make violation of the law a third degree felony. The proposed law would apply to homeowners and landlords, as well as employers. But the focus is clearly on companies that ban guns in parking lots.
Many companies have such policies to ensure the safety of the workplace, says Matthew Stubbe, employment attorney in the Chicago office of Fisher & Phillips. He cites a Mississippi case where a Lockheed Martin worker retrieved guns from his vehicle and went on a rampage, killing five and injuring nine before taking his own life. In subsequent litigation, the courts held that criminal acts are not covered under workers' compensation, opening up the employer to claims for damages.
While gun opponents cite the Mississippi incident as a case in point for no-guns policies, gun advocates point to an Oklahoma case, pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, brought by Weyerhaeuser employees fired for keeping firearms in their vehicles parked in the company lot. That action spurred the Oklahoma legislature to pass a law, now being tested in a separate suit, barring rules against guns in parking lots.
State Rep. Dennis Baxley (R-Ocala), House sponsor of the Florida legislation, says he was motivated by the Weyerhaeuser case.
“If a person legally possesses firearms, he should not be discriminated against by his employer,” Baxley says. “They can't discriminate against women or minorities, so there is no reason they should be able to discriminate against gun owners.”
Employer Action
However, companies are concerned that allowing guns onto their property creates a danger to the rest of the workforce and makes them liable if anyone is injured or hurt as a result. Baxley's bill includes a no-liability clause, which he says protects employers against being sued if someone is injured or killed by a firearm that has been legally stored in a vehicle.
Stubbe says such clauses do not allay his concerns about employer liability.
“Potential liability claims for acts of gun violence could be brought under a number of theories, including negligent hiring, negligent supervision and negligent retention,” Stubbe says. Until the scope of the no-liability clauses is tested in the courts, the protection they afford is questionable, he adds.
So far, Florida employers are not front-and-center in the debate. Only Iron Mountain, a Boston-based records management company with facilities in Florida, stood up to be counted against the bill when the Brady Center held a press conference in Tallahassee in December.
Some say the NRA is intimidating the business community. The organization last summer announced a boycott against ConocoPhillips, which is fighting the Oklahoma statute, saying it would “spare no effort or expense” to work against companies it views as anti-gun. (Calls to NRA headquarters were not returned.)
Others say Florida business owners have divergent views on the topic.
Barney Bishop, president of Associated Industries of Florida, which lobbies for business interests, says he expects an upcoming survey to find members on both sides of the issue.
“Up here in North Florida, it's common to hunt early in the morning, before work,” he says. “Keeping a loaded gun in your vehicle is taken for granted. At the same time, we understand the property rights issues involved.”
But John A. Rogers, Jr., general counsel of the Florida Retail Federation, says his association is concerned about the bill and will oppose it as currently drafted.
“We see it as more a right-to-work, employment-at-will issue than a gun issue,” he says.
Spokespersons for two of Florida's largest employers, Walt Disney World and Publix Super Markets, both of which ban guns in their parking lots, say their companies are waiting to see if the bills change as they move through committee hearings before taking a position.
Siebel says it's time for companies to speak out.
“Corporations don't understand what is coming down the pike,” he says. “The NRA will try to push aggressively to pass legislation before corporate America wakes up to the fact that their rights are being stripped away.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAlbertsons Gives Up on $25B Merger, Sues Kroger Seeking 'Billions of Dollars'
Manufacturing Group Urges Sweeping Environmental Deregulation in Letter to Trump
Atkins Likely to Bring Pro-Business, Light Regulatory Touch to SEC, Say Agency Observers
SEC Commissioner Uyeda Predicts Eased Crypto Enforcement Under Next Chair
Trending Stories
- 1What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
- 2Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 3US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 4‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
- 53 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250