Originally Posted By Mr X My point was not to drift the thread into gay rights, but simply to mention that these rather baffling, "difficult to wrap your head around", "that doesn't really make any sense at all" arguments seem very similar both in the cases of pro-gun and anti-gay advocates. What it boils down to is, imho, the gun folks want a gun "just because", and the anti-gay folks want to limit gay rights "just because". That's the way I see it, anyway.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey <<What it boils down to is, imho, the gun folks want a gun "just because">> I agree. The way some gun owners talk you'd swear they were walking into the middle of the OK Corral every time they hit the door. Especially WDW - it's not a dark alley in the most dangerous part of town in the middle of the night.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< He says, whatever it said in the guys contract, is what the guy is legally allowed or not allowed to do. If he's a security guard and the company rule is no guns, the guy should be enforcing the rules, not breaking them. >>> The context of the lawsuit was that the contract violated state law. The state places all kinds of restrictions on what an employer can do to an employee. For example, an employer cannot pay an employee less than minimum wage, even if they employee agrees to it in writing. That was this guy's argument - that Florida state law prohibited Disney from placing a restriction on his ability to keep a gun in his car while at work. But according to the report, because of the explosives handling issue at WDW, this provided an out for Disney to do what most Florida employers cannot do.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Especially WDW - it's not a dark alley in the most dangerous part of town in the middle of the night. >>> The point isn't what's going on at the actual workplace, but what happens to and from the workplace, and at home. How do you know that they guy doesn't live in a bad neighborhood?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad The only thing I would add is IMHO to call Disney un-american is wrong. The thing that really makes me scratch my head over the workplace things is, if you really feel that you need a weapon in your vehicle, and you can have it there legally, why not just lock it in your glove box and keep you fat mouth shut about having it? If you can't do that at minimum, you probably shouldn't be allowed to have a permit. What an idiot.
Originally Posted By hightp Dad, I think this guy did exactly the opposite to what you said in order to provoke the lawsuit. That way a judge will decide whether the law should stand or be ammended. I'm sure there were much higer powers involved in getting this issue to court. After all, why would he announce 'I'm going to bring my gun to work and leave it in my car.' If he didn't want Disney to call him on it? From what I've read, the law makers never actually intended a company like Disney to ban firearms on the premesis, so the law may be overturned on the basis that, even though Disney has an explosives permit, the company is not in the business of manufactuing or distributing explosives.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey <<The point isn't what's going on at the actual workplace, but what happens to and from the workplace, and at home. How do you know that they guy doesn't live in a bad neighborhood?>> That's not his argument. His argument is "the law says I can, so I want to". And even if he lived in a rough neighborhood, then you do hightp said: you lock your gun in your glove box and you keep your mouth shut. This guy is trying to stir the pot.
Originally Posted By Mr X Nikki and DVC, there's one small point that you guys are overlooking though. In a normal workplace, that would be fine (just keeping it and not mentioning it), but Disney reserves the right to search employees' vehicles on their way out for loss prevention purposes. It is my understanding that they can and do search cars rather frequently. It's entirely possibly the guy could've gotten in more trouble (or, at least, looked bad and less than forthcoming) if he'd tried the sneaky route.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey <<In a normal workplace, that would be fine (just keeping it and not mentioning it), but Disney reserves the right to search employees' vehicles on their way out for loss prevention purposes. It is my understanding that they can and do search cars rather frequently.>> I did not know they could do that. I know when I worked at The Disney Store (back in the day) we had to open our bags and purses for the managers to look in before we left for the day. I never imagined they'd look through cars, though.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^ Our company considers the parking lots their property also - and all company rules apply there.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I did not know they could do that.*** Of course they can. ***I know when I worked at The Disney Store (back in the day) we had to open our bags and purses for the managers to look in before we left for the day. I never imagined they'd look through cars, though.*** The difference being that Disney parks are pretty big spaces and lots of activity is carried on outdoors. It would be a fairly simple manner to carry around a handful of Mickey dolls, for example, without attracting suspicion since you are obviously "working", and then just pop them in the trunk real quick. They have other security measures in place as well (for example, in Tokyo if you buy anything at the backstage stores the bag is stapled with the receipt on it to prove you actually paid for it).
Originally Posted By Mr X An even bigger example could be a nefarious driver filling a company van with Mickey dolls (or whatever)...wouldn't likely attract much attention at all, until of course he/she drives to the exit and gets stopped and checked. And before any CM's chime in with "well the parking lots are far away", it's easy enough to get drive-in passes and I've had them for my personal vehicle from time to time at Epcot, Universal, and Tokyo Disneyland (probably not as easy to procure post 9/11, but still...). Anyway yeah, there are plenty of good reasons for them to need to check employee vehicles on their way out.
Originally Posted By Disneyland55 If while on the way to or from work, a driver pointed a gun at someone or shot someone, wouldn't the driver be arrested and charged (even if for "self defense")?
Originally Posted By Disneyland55 I am glad that I don't carry a gun in my car, because I am certain that there are times I would have done something regretful.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If while on the way to or from work, a driver pointed a gun at someone or shot someone, wouldn't the driver be arrested and charged (even if for "self defense")?*** Why put self-defense in quotes? If someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself (no matter where you are). If they threaten you with a deadly weapon, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force. Self-defense is not a crime, as far as I know.
Originally Posted By Disneyland55 Ok, that was my question... So you can shoot someone if you are defending yourself and not be arrested? You go on the defense quickly...
Originally Posted By Mr X No, not on the defense. I just thought it was weird you put that term in quotes (as though most people defending themselves are getting away with something). I didn't say you wouldn't get arrested, you very well could. But it is my understanding that self defense is not a crime. If I'm wrong on that one, I'd sure like to know about it (like, if someone is shooting at you and you kill them, have you done something wrong?).
Originally Posted By Disneyland55 I've never been clear on that. I've heard stories of people getting off without any trouble because it was considered self defense, and I've heard other stories where people using self defense were treated like criminals. I don't know whether it is "right or wrong" to kill or harm someone in self defense. However, I am interested in staying out of trouble with the law. I would be afraid of the consequences of shooting someone in self defense. Also, I think I am more likely to get killed if I pull a gun in self defense, than if I just give the person what they demand. That is just me though; I am sure that a lot of other people are skilled when it comes to shooting and would win the gun fight.
Originally Posted By Mr X Ah, but that's different I think. I'm not sure that even someone POINTING a weapon at you (as in "give me all your money") is a self-defensible issue. I think they also have to threaten to kill you, or start attacking you in some way. That's where it gets muddy I think. And of course, in the case of no witnesses it can be very tricky (maybe some law types should chime in, I'm not claiming to be an expert).
Originally Posted By hightp I'm not sure the law is the same in all states, but if you kill someone in self defense, you will not be arrested. The police will, probably, read you your rights, and question you, but you are, generally, not 'booked' and put in a cell. Once the police have the info they need, you are released pending the investigation (provided you're not a known trouble maker). If there are no additional witnesses, it's possible you'll be held longer. In determining self defense, a person has to have 'a reasonable fear' of being attacked. You don't actually have to be, physically attacked, but it needs to be more than just words. If someone shouts at you from across the street, your actions wouldn't be considered self defense, but if that person runs at you, while shouting, you could interpreate that as an attack and take appropiate action. In that case, the police may find you innocent of wrong doing, but you could be opened to a civil lawsuit.
