Originally Posted By dshyates <a href="http://www.wesh.com/news/16854329/detail.html" target="_blank">http://www.wesh.com/news/16854...ail.html</a>
Originally Posted By jdub <<"It is a big deal to me, and it is a big deal to me and thousands of people around the country that believe Disney is, you know, very un-American, and obviously, on the Fourth of July, they became very un-American," Sotomayor said.>> I know you can't see it over the intranets, but I am rolling my eyes. <<Disney holds a permit to handle explosives on its property, mainly fireworks, and under Florida's new gun law, companies with those kinds of permits do not have to allow guns on their property.>> 'Nuff said.
Originally Posted By X-san Yeeeah...what jdub said. That guys a loon, not to mention an idiot since the law is CLEARLY not in his favor. I also think this paragraph... "Disney officials claimed the company doesn't have to follow a new state law allowing people to bring firearms onto business properties." ...is disingenuous on the part of the reporter, considering again that the law is clearly on their side and Disney is NOT implying that they "don't have to follow" any laws whatsoever.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Disney's Gun Ban? Is that a new movie or somethin' I haven't heard about?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Hmmm...if the guests have to go through a bag check (even if it isn't terribly detailed) to make sure they aren't bringing in glass containers, why should an employee be allowed to bring in a gun? I know he's a security guard and all, but there's no reason to have it there. As for the constitutional right, Disney owns the land, making it private property. They have final say on what goes on there, meaning they can ban guns or not allow guns. As long as the government still allows people to own firearms, his constitutional rights are covered. It has been covered several times by other people trying to sue, but private places (like Disney World) have every right to limit the freedoms of people visiting the property.
Originally Posted By dshyates Not so fast. The FL state gov just said that employers have no right to ban guns from their property. That means if I own a business that does not hold an explosives license, then my employees have a right to bring a gun on my property regardless of what rules I make. That would also go for Disney. Fortunately for Disney they have an explosives license. Therefore they are exempt. So I can ban cigarettes, but not conceled weapons.
Originally Posted By X-san ***but private places (like Disney World) have every right to limit the freedoms of people visiting the property.*** Not exactly.
Originally Posted By dshyates Hey, why should Disney be any diffeent than anyone else. Everybody in America thinks carring side arms is good, right? Why not have 60,000 employees with guns in their car. Seriously, thats about half of what the US military has in Iraq. So if WDW were invaded they could protect the place. See how American that would be. Better yet they could defend WDW against the US gov't if need be. That why the 2nd Adm. was written, right.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Or protect against a carjacker. Which I hear WDW has a record on." Its hard to protect yourself against carjacking if it has to be locked in the trunk while on property. The carjacker may get suspicious if you say, "wait a sec. and then proceed to go unlock the trunk, and remove the trigger lock from your Baretta .9mm. Aside from that, aren't all the employee parking lots on-prop gated with a guards and survaillence cameras?
Originally Posted By dshyates Wait a sec. Other than going postal, what good is having a gun locked in your trunk at work. The only way it would be useful is if your mad and go out and get it to "take care of bidness".
Originally Posted By X-san Well, I think the point is not so people can have their weapons AT work, but rather they have the right to carry them to and from work (as ElderP mentions, to prevent being carjacked, for example).
Originally Posted By trekkeruss While I don't see why this guy is so adamant about his rights, when the right is so restrictive in this case {if it has to be locked in the trunk, what good is it going to do him?), I guess I can understand a little why he would sue for his job back. I mean, there could be guns in the trunk of a guest's car and they would not have any recourse in those instances, yes? In other words, why such a reaction about a gun locked in the trunk of a car?
Originally Posted By staceypooh One big part of this story that was told in the first news casts and left out of the most recent ones was that this cast member told Disney he intended to bring a gun with him and leave it in his car. We live in Orlando and we heard this story on the news before he was fired because said he was going to bring the gun to work. So the media was all over what Disney was going to do if he did indeed bring the gun with him. I really think this cast member just wanted to start something and challenge Disney. He announced he was going to bring the gun with him to work and leave it in his car. If a guest had a firearm in their car, and they announced it to Disney security, then Disney security would probably ask the guest to leave the property. If the cast member had kept his mouth shut, then nobody would have known he had a gun in his car to begin with. BUT, if he kept his mouth shut, then he couldn't bring a ridiculous suit against Disney and get all of the attention that he is now getting.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Seems an idiotic way to get attention. He could lose, after all, and end up having to pay his lawyer however many hours worth of work.
