Disney relaxes restrictions on worker...

Disney relaxes restrictions on workers' guns

There are 206 comments on the Orlando Sentinel story from Aug 16, 2008, titled Disney relaxes restrictions on workers' guns. In it, Orlando Sentinel reports that:

Walt Disney World has limited its ban on employee guns at work to the giant resort's main property only -- and with that move Friday received the blessing of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Orlando Sentinel.

First Prev
of 11
Next Last
corrupt

United States

#1 Aug 16, 2008
must be nice to get free legal advice from the attorney general you put in office instead of a lawsuit filed like any other company would have gotten. McCollum-bought and paid for.
Nancy

Rossville, GA

#2 Aug 16, 2008
I'm sure the NRA blessed this deal as well - they knew they stood a tremendous chance of the entire law being kicked if it went to the Supreme Ct in FL - they love to overturn everything our idiot legislators come up with. The NRA was not going to win against privacy laws - which is what would be used to challenge this law. The Courts will always lean towards privacy rights when there is a challenge. The NRA knows this - why do you think you do not hear them shouting today?

LOLOLOL
corrupt wrote:
must be nice to get free legal advice from the attorney general you put in office instead of a lawsuit filed like any other company would have gotten. McCollum-bought and paid for.

Since: Mar 08

Rayville, LA

#3 Aug 16, 2008
What the AG is fine or not fine with is completel immaterial. They will still be challenged in court by an employee, and they will get their asses handed to them again.
Privacy laws swing both ways honey. A vehicle can be viewed as an extention of one's home. They cannot go through it to check for firearms without probable cause or a search warrant. As such, the privacy of the owner to have a weapon in the (extention of) his home will win out.
Nancy wrote:
I'm sure the NRA blessed this deal as well - they knew they stood a tremendous chance of the entire law being kicked if it went to the Supreme Ct in FL - they love to overturn everything our idiot legislators come up with. The NRA was not going to win against privacy laws - which is what would be used to challenge this law. The Courts will always lean towards privacy rights when there is a challenge. The NRA knows this - why do you think you do not hear them shouting today?
LOLOLOL
<quoted text>
Informed

United States

#4 Aug 16, 2008
Thibodeaux wrote:
What the AG is fine or not fine with is completel immaterial. They will still be challenged in court by an employee, and they will get their asses handed to them again.
Privacy laws swing both ways honey. A vehicle can be viewed as an extention of one's home. They cannot go through it to check for firearms without probable cause or a search warrant. As such, the privacy of the owner to have a weapon in the (extention of) his home will win out.
<quoted text>
There's no such thing.
Edwin Sotomayor

United States

#5 Aug 16, 2008
corrupt wrote:
must be nice to get free legal advice from the attorney general you put in office instead of a lawsuit filed like any other company would have gotten. McCollum-bought and paid for.

I am with you "currupt" No wonder Disney got the AG's blessing regarding the gun policy change. The AG should be ashame of using his public office as an elected official to extend a political preference or a $520,000 favor back to Disney instead of staying neutral due to a direct conflict against our civil rights and the 2nd Amendment. The last time I checked our constitution says "We the People" NOT "We Disney"...

GunShowOnTheNet

“Shall NOT be infringed.”

Since: Dec 06

Phoenix, AZ.

#6 Aug 16, 2008
Thibodeaux wrote:
What the AG is fine or not fine with is completel immaterial. They will still be challenged in court by an employee, and they will get their asses handed to them again.
Privacy laws swing both ways honey. A vehicle can be viewed as an extention of one's home. They cannot go through it to check for firearms without probable cause or a search warrant. As such, the privacy of the owner to have a weapon in the (extention of) his home will win out.
<quoted text>
Then it would seem that carrying arms on the person would be an even better and more wise of an "extension".

GunShowOnTheNet

“Shall NOT be infringed.”

Since: Dec 06

Phoenix, AZ.

#7 Aug 16, 2008
Informed wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no such thing.
Would suggest that you study the law, and you will discover just how wrong you are....

Since: Mar 08

United States

#8 Aug 16, 2008
Informed wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no such thing.
"Commonwealth v. Simmons, supra at 49. As the parking space was beyond the curtilage of the defendant's apartment, the search warrant for the defendant's apartment did not extend to it. Commonwealth v. Signorine, supra at 403. Put another way, where the vehicle was not within the curtilage of the residence named in the warrant when searched, the search exceeded the scope of the authority granted by the warrant. In order to overcome the defendant's expectation of privacy, the vehicle should have been either included in the warrant or named in a separate warrant. Consequently, the judge properly granted the defendant's motion to suppress and his order is affirmed."

Try again.

Since: Mar 08

United States

#9 Aug 16, 2008
Docket No.: SJC-07837
Parties: COMMONWEALTH vs. SCOTT A. McCARTHY.
County: Norfolk.
Dates: January 5, 1999.- February 10, 1999.
Present: Wilkins, C.J., Abrams, Greaney, Fried, & Ireland, JJ.
Search and Seizure, Automobile, Automobile on private property, Multiple occupancy building, Warrant. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure.

A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Thomas F. Brownell, J.
Profet

Orlando, FL

#10 Aug 16, 2008
Can you imagine a bunch of criminals among serius workers, carrying gun to work?
Before you go to work guys...kiss your childrem as would be a last one. Disney socks!!!

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#11 Aug 17, 2008
Informed wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no such thing.
Quoted from the United States Constitution:
—————
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
—————

Guess what?

>YOU< LOSE!
Zippy the Pinhead

Winter Park, FL

#12 Aug 17, 2008
Happiness is a warm gun,(bang bang shoot shoot) as the Paul sang. and hey, he was the Walrus.

And Dizzy World is the Happiest most place on Earth, so there you go. Sing gabba gabba hey.

What was the question again?
Tim

Kissimmee, FL

#13 Aug 17, 2008
WAY TO GO DISNEY

1. It is Disney's PRIVATE PROPERTY. They should be able to maintain the restrictions they want!

2. New employees are advised of the policy BEFORE they begin employment. If they don't like the rules, find a job someplace else.

3. Disney is operating within the law. They have a federal permit related to handling fireworks. It makes them exempt from the law.
Pooh Bah

Shreveport, LA

#14 Aug 17, 2008
Disney blinked? I don't believe it. There's a backroom deal in this story. What is it?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#15 Aug 17, 2008
Zippy the Pinhead wrote:
Happiness is a warm gun,(bang bang shoot shoot) as the Paul sang. and hey, he was the Walrus.
And Dizzy World is the Happiest most place on Earth, so there you go. Sing gabba gabba hey.
What was the question again?
Is it ~your~ considered opinion that Disney has the right to determine the life of a person when =not= on Disney property?

Do you ~feel~ that as a condition of employment, that Disney has the right to declare that its employees must be left completely defenseless between home and work?
Jon Gutmacher

Daytona Beach, FL

#16 Aug 17, 2008
So -- with Disney being so close to the Attorney General - do you think the AG sold out the citizens of Florida as part of a pay-back for Disney support? The position of the Attorney General seems totally contrary to the intent of the Legislature on the new guns in parking lot law, and sells out the rights of citizens to self defense. Any thoughts?
Jon Gutmacher

Daytona Beach, FL

#17 Aug 17, 2008
Just to let you know -- the exact position of the Attorney General is being challenged in court by Edwin Sotomayor in his case against Disney. [Disney fired him for having a locked gun in his trunk] The case is on appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Florida because the judge thought that while Sotomayor might have a case - he should have addressed it by a claim for money damages rather than seeking an injunction to get his job back, and the trespass notice lifted. The decision affects 46 square miles of Florida (Disney property) and over 60,000 employees.
Edwin Sotomayor

Chicago, IL

#18 Aug 17, 2008
Jon Gutmacher wrote:
So -- with Disney being so close to the Attorney General - do you think the AG sold out the citizens of Florida as part of a pay-back for Disney support? The position of the Attorney General seems totally contrary to the intent of the Legislature on the new guns in parking lot law, and sells out the rights of citizens to self defense. Any thoughts?
That's how I felt when I read the bottom of this article... a $520,000 favor back to Disney.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#19 Aug 17, 2008
Edwin Sotomayor wrote:
<quoted text>
That's how I felt when I read the bottom of this article... a $520,000 favor back to Disney.
Maybe someone should demand that he step aside out of concerns as regards conflict of interest?

If a judge must recuse himself where any of the interested parties are known to him, the so should the DA especially since he benefitted from one of the parties to the litigation.
Dr_Dolittle

Windermere, FL

#20 Aug 17, 2008
Profet wrote:
Can you imagine a bunch of criminals among serius workers, carrying gun to work?
Think about what you just wrote; criminals DON'T CARE WHAT THE LAW SAYS! That's why they are criminals! If the law says that all guns must be red and worn on the top of your head, criminals will still do whatever they feel like doing!

Creating laws thinking that criminals will follow them is one of the main reasons why the books are full of useless laws, and law-abading citizens can't even cross the street without risking getting arrested and charged by some headline-hungry cop or prosecutor.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 11
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Fort Lauderdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min John Galt 1,406,512
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 70,857
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Mothra 60,675
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 6 hr zazz 98,135
WILLIAMS v. SATZ, States Attorney Election 10 hr Broward s LE Comm... 5
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Jul 27 ThomasA 311,496
News Why Suzanne Somers loves bioidentical hormones (Jun '09) Jul 27 Chaimpie 93

Fort Lauderdale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Fort Lauderdale Mortgages