[brboyer]

I've seen a lot of posts that make reference to 790.251, so I thought a brief clarification is in order:

790.251 has noting to do with the legalities of firearms possession, period! :aarg :smack : censored

It simply protects someone from administrative action by the property owner/employer for keeping the firearm in your car in their parking lot.


http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC251.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0790->Section%20251#0790.251


790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.--

(1) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the "Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008."

(2) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Parking lot" means any property that is used for parking motor vehicles and is available to customers, employees, or invitees for temporary or long-term parking or storage of motor vehicles.

(b) "Motor vehicle" means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motor home, recreational vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state and required to be registered under state law.

(c) "Employee" means any person who possesses a valid license issued pursuant to s. 790.06 and:

1. Works for salary, wages, or other remuneration;

2. Is an independent contractor; or

3. Is a volunteer, intern, or other similar individual for an employer.

(d) "Employer" means any business that is a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, professional association, cooperative, joint venture, trust, firm, institution, or association, or public sector entity, that has employees.

(e) "Invitee" means any business invitee, including a customer or visitor, who is lawfully on the premises of a public or private employer.

As used in this section, the term "firearm" includes ammunition and accoutrements attendant to the lawful possession and use of a firearm.

(3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.--This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen's lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law.

(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.--No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.

(b) No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.

(c) No public or private employer shall condition employment upon either:

1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or

2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.

(d) No public or private employer shall prohibit or attempt to prevent any customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the employer's place of business because the customer's, employee's, or invitee's private motor vehicle contains a legal firearm being carried for lawful purposes, that is out of sight within the customer's, employee's, or invitee's private motor vehicle.

(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.

This subsection applies to all public sector employers, including those already prohibited from regulating firearms under the provisions of s. 790.33.

(5) DUTY OF CARE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS; IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.--

(a) When subject to the provisions of subsection (4), a public or private employer has no duty of care related to the actions prohibited under such subsection.

(b) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with this section.

(c) Nothing contained in this section shall be interpreted to expand any existing duty, or create any additional duty, on the part of a public or private employer, property owner, or property owner's agent.

(6) ENFORCEMENT.--The Attorney General shall enforce the protections of this act on behalf of any customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act. If there is reasonable cause to believe that the aggrieved person's rights under this act have been violated by a public or private employer, the Attorney General shall commence a civil or administrative action for damages, injunctive relief and civil penalties, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the provisions of s. 760.51, or may negotiate a settlement with any employer on behalf of any person aggrieved under the act. However, nothing in this act shall prohibit the right of a person aggrieved under this act to bring a civil action for violation of rights protected under the act. In any successful action brought by a customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act, the court shall award all reasonable personal costs and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the violation of rights under this act. In any action brought pursuant to this act, the court shall award all court costs and attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

(7) EXCEPTIONS.--The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:

(a) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115.

(b) Any correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47 or chapter 957.

(c) Any property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located.

(d) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which are conducted substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security.

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

(f) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer.

(g) Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of this state.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

I aggree, I am not sure who stated otherwise. If it was I, let me know and I will edit my post.

There is no where in f.s. 790.251 that says you are committing any crime. It gives permission for persons with a CCWL the right to keep a firearm in their vehicle w/o being asked to leave an establishment or if it is your employer you cant be fired or have your vehicle searched etc... etc...

One thing to point out since this post is about 790.251 is that it was poorly written and may not apply to customers of an establishment. And I am not being a SA about this there is a case law that exists but I am at work and not going to look for it now because I spent so much time writing this post .

This is what I mean. I will post applicable portions of the statute.

It says " that they (citizens of fl) have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity.

(a) No public or private ***employer*** may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.

FLORIDA STATUTE defines the meaning of some of the terms used in this statute. In this case, you can not use the dictionary definition of these words.

DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section, the term:

"Employer" means any business that is a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, professional association, cooperative, joint venture, trust, firm, institution, or association, or public sector entity, that has employees.

And per the same statute

"Employee" means any person who possesses a valid license issued pursuant to s. 790.06

So that means that if a business has people working for them and none of the workers have a CCWL of their own, then that business is not considered an "Employer" as defined by the statute because that business technically does not have any"Employee" 's as defined by the statute.

 

[Paladin]

It sure gets confusing doesn't it?

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

It sure gets confusing doesn't it?

Tell me about it. I was shocked when I found that out and what I posted above is not just me being analytical. There is indead a case law where this came up. In fact, I probably learned about this on this forum.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

okay, I mentioned there was case law on this so after getting home and watching "doll house" (priorities you know - she is hot) I have looked for and found the case law I was referring to. Below is a link to said case. It is page 5 of 39 section II entitled "the statute at issue" 2nd paragraph which states pretty much what I posted above.

http://www.flchamber.com/docs/Coalitions/GunsAtWorkCoalition/GunsatWorkRuling_072809.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
FLORIDA RETAIL FEDERATION, INC.,
et al,
Plaintiffs,
v. CASE NO. 4:08cv179-RH/WCS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA,
Defendant.​

_______________________________________/

Before addressing the statute’s specific provisions, a word is in order about the terms used in the statute and in this opinion. The statute specifically defines the terms “employee” and “employer.” See § 790.251(2)(c) & (d). ​

The statutory definitions do not comport with ordinary English usage nor with the terms’ commonly applied legal definitions. ​

Instead, the statute defines an “employee” as a person “who possesses a valid license issued pursuant to s. 790.06”—that is, who has a valid Florida permit to carry a concealed weapon— and who is either an employee (as the term is ordinarily used) or an independent contractor or a volunteer. § 790.251(2)(c). ​

The statute defines “employer” as a business in any form—including, for example, a sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation—or public-sector entity “that has employees.” § 790.251(2)(d) (emphasis added). ​

Thus a business is an “employer” as defined in the statute only if it has one or more workers who have a valid Florida concealed-carry permit. ​

This may seem odd, but the Legislature of course can define the terms it uses in a statute to mean whatever the Legislature chooses, and the definitions in this statute could not be more clear on this point.​

 

[LevelG27]

So bottom line is if we are a customer or employee that has a CCW we can keep the firearm in our vehicle being a customer or while employee?

Reading all the laws gives me a headache....and Stat. numbers is sometimes hard to interpurt....

 

[Paladin]

So bottom line is if we are a customer or employee that has a CCW we can keep the firearm in our vehicle being a customer or while employee?

Reading all the laws gives me a headache....and Stat. numbers is sometimes hard to interpurt....

If I read this correctly then if the employer has employees (CWP holders) then they can't stop you from having it in your car (even if you aren't licensed) and they can't search you vehicle or fire you for having it.

If the employer does not have any employees then all bets are off though they can't violate other case law concerning illegal searches or firing etc.

As a CWP holder I think we have certain rights such that it doesn't mater if the business qualifies as an "employer" or not.

Somebody goofed when they wrote the definitions for 790.251.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

So bottom line is if we are a customer or employee that has a CCW we can keep the firearm in our vehicle being a customer or while employee?

Reading all the laws gives me a headache....and Stat. numbers is sometimes hard to interpurt....

Good question, If you are an employee, then you are fine . If you are a customer then you are not. see further explanation below

If I read this correctly then if the employer has employees (CWP holders) then they can't stop you from having it in your car (even if you aren't licensed) and they can't search you vehicle or fire you for having it.

If the employer does not have any employees then all bets are off though they can't violate other case law concerning illegal searches or firing etc.

As a CWP holder I think we have certain rights such that it doesn't mater if the business qualifies as an "employer" or not.

Somebody goofed when they wrote the definitions for 790.251.

Paladin, not exactly. To understand all of this fully you have to be a dork like myself and read all 39 pages . I will further clarify for you. 1st of all, this statute only applies to CCWL holders only. If you are an employee then you can keep the gun in your car while on your employers property unless your employer qualifies for an exception to the law such as a detention facility or a company that has or uses explosives on their property. Dont know if you remember that disney tried to use the exception because they set off fireworks on their property, they even fired an employee who had a gun in his car after the law went into effect as they claimed the exemption. If you are an employee then sometimes an employer may have a policy that says they can search your vehicle if you bring your vehicle on their property. This law would trump your employer and allow you to refuse to let your employer to search your vehicle if you have a gun in the car and they can not fire you as a result.

Now the fun part, If you are a customer, the judge determined that the portion of the statute that pertains to customers is unconstitutional. He came to this conclusion because he said that you can have two like businesses right next to each other and one of those businesses has a worker with a license and the other does not. That would mean that a customer can keep a gun in his car at the business who has a worker with a CCWL but could not at the same business next door where they have no "employees". The judge concluded that it is unconstitutional for the businesses to be treated differently. Also he stated that the only way to enforce the law as written would be to take daily statistics from their workers as to if any of them had brought a gun to their work and are keeping it in the car. This is not only not practicle but a violation of the workers right to privacy. This also made it unconstitutional.

Now we know that you dont need a license to keep a gun in your car as a customer but you can be asked to leave the premises if anyone found out. It was the intent of the law that if you had a CCWL then as a customer you could not be asked to leave the business if you had a gun in your car but I will repeat that because the statute was poorly written, there is no protection for a customer in that the business owner can ask them to leave if gun is in car.

Of course, If the business owner does not know (I think the only way he could find out was if you told them) then a business does not have the right to "illegal search and seizure" as that is protection that you still have.


PLEASE SEE MY SIGNATURE, I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS IS MY INTERPRETATION OF THE RULING AND THE LAW.

 

[Steve48]

If I read this correctly then if the employer has employees (CWP holders) then they can't stop you from having it in your car (even if you aren't licensed) and they can't search you vehicle or fire you for having it.

Also keep in mind that, in Florida, an employer doesn't need a reason to fire anyone. If he doesn't want guns on his property and suspects that you have one, he can fire you for some trivia and there's nothing you can do.

 

[Paladin]

Good question, If you are an employee, then you are fine . If you are a customer then you are not. see further explanation below



Paladin, not exactly. To understand all of this fully you have to be a dork like myself and read all 39 pages . I will further clarify for you. 1st of all, this statute only applies to CCWL holders only. If you are an employee then you can keep the gun in your car while on your employers property unless your employer qualifies for an exception to the law such as a detention facility or a company that has or uses explosives on their property. Dont know if you remember that disney tried to use the exception because they set off fireworks on their property, they even fired an employee who had a gun in his car after the law went into effect as they claimed the exemption. If you are an employee then sometimes an employer may have a policy that says they can search your vehicle if you bring your vehicle on their property. This law would trump your employer and allow you to refuse to let your employer to search your vehicle if you have a gun in the car and they can not fire you as a result.

Now the fun part, If you are a customer, the judge determined that the portion of the statute that pertains to customers is unconstitutional. He came to this conclusion because he said that you can have two like businesses right next to each other and one of those businesses has a worker with a license and the other does not. That would mean that a customer can keep a gun in his car at the business who has a worker with a CCWL but could not at the same business next door where they have no "employees". The judge concluded that it is unconstitutional for the businesses to be treated differently. Also he stated that the only way to enforce the law as written would be to take daily statistics from their workers as to if any of them had brought a gun to their work and are keeping it in the car. This is not only not practicle but a violation of the workers right to privacy. This also made it unconstitutional.

Now we know that you dont need a license to keep a gun in your car as a customer but you can be asked to leave the premises if anyone found out. It was the intent of the law that if you had a CCWL then as a customer you could not be asked to leave the business if you had a gun in your car but I will repeat that because the statute was poorly written, there is no protection for a customer in that the business owner can ask them to leave if gun is in car.

Of course, If the business owner does not know (I think the only way he could find out was if you told them) then a business does not have the right to "illegal search and seizure" as that is protection that you still have.


PLEASE SEE MY SIGNATURE, I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS IS MY INTERPRETATION OF THE RULING AND THE LAW.

I wish you would quit changing our avatar - it makes it hard to find your posts.

So if I read you right then as a CWFL holder I'm protected with the gun in the car regardless of if the employer has employees or not. And it doesn't matter if I am an employee or a customer.

 

[Rvrctyrngr]

Thanks for posting that, brboyer. I keep seeing 790.251 pop up in threads where it has no bearing whatsoever, just because of some of the verbiage that is in there.

Hope the Bucs have a decent draft!
S

 

[deadeyedick]

I frankly don't see how this law even applies to me at all as a customer at any given business. If a business owner wants to expel me for carrying a concealed weapon he can do so, regardless of this law. Whether or not he can prohibit me from storing a firearm in my vehicle on his property is moot; there is no practical way that such a prohibition could be enforced, since there is no way for a business owner to know what is inside a customer's vehicle.

Theoretically, I suppose a business could establish some sort of security checkpoint where customers would be required to voluntarily submit to a vehicle search before being allowed onto that business' property. But as a practical matter, no such entity would remain in business for long.

 

[Glock23-4-Me]

I wish you would quit changing our avatar - it makes it hard to find your posts.

So if I read you right then as a CWFL holder I'm protected with the gun in the car regardless of if the employer has employees or not. And it doesn't matter if I am an employee or a customer.

as a CWFL holder you are protected with a gun in your car at your work because you are a worker with a CWFL which means you are an "employee" per statute which makes the business you work for an "employer" per statute. The issue with the wording of the statute applies more so with customers who have a CWFL and a gun in their car and that portion is what the judge said was unconstitutional. So if you are a customer with a CWFL and left your gun in your car, if somehow the business found out, they could tell you to leave and the statute would not protect you based on the judges decision.

I frankly don't see how this law even applies to me at all as a customer at any given business. If a business owner wants to expel me for carrying a concealed weapon he can do so, regardless of this law. Whether or not he can prohibit me from storing a firearm in my vehicle on his property is moot; there is no practical way that such a prohibition could be enforced, since there is no way for a business owner to know what is inside a customer's vehicle.

If you carry a gun on you and are a customer of a business, yes they can tell you to leave. The intent of the statute would have protected a customer with a CWFL, who kept his gun in his car, from being expelled from the business. If the statute was worded correctly, then a business would not legally be allowed to kick you off the property because you have a gun in your car. Because of the wording, you do not have that protection and if a business found out that you as a customer had a gun in your car then can tel you to leave.

That being said, if you are a smart person, like you pointed out deadeyedick how in the : censored would a business know you had a gun in your car anyway. Keep your mouth shut and no one will know.

 

[Rvrctyrngr]

I frankly don't see how this law even applies to me at all as a customer at any given business. If a business owner wants to expel me for carrying a concealed weapon he can do so, regardless of this law. Whether or not he can prohibit me from storing a firearm in my vehicle on his property is moot; there is no practical way that such a prohibition could be enforced, since there is no way for a business owner to know what is inside a customer's vehicle.

Theoretically, I suppose a business could establish some sort of security checkpoint where customers would be required to voluntarily submit to a vehicle search before being allowed onto that business' property. But as a practical matter, no such entity would remain in business for long.

As usual, you're dead on, DeadEyeDick. The law was hastily and very poorly written....even the Circuit Court Judge that upheld it said so.

Customer, Schmustomer...I carry where it's legal to do so. If someone wants to search my vehicle...get a warrant...that includes employers.

 

[Mighty Hd]

Digging up an OLD thread here. A recent discussion came up with a friend of a friend who works for a local city - aka he is a public employee.

This gentleman drives a city-owned vehicle for work and often must go into bad, bad areas. The topic of Concealed Carry came up and somehow I was brought into the conversation. Sadly, I could not provide an answer and thought I would post it here.

If he is a public employee, driving a city/county/state owned vehicle, can he legally carry on or off body with a CCW permit?

The way that I roughly interpreted the statute is that he may not.

?

I've seen a lot of posts that make reference to 790.251, so I thought a brief clarification is in order:

790.251 has noting to do with the legalities of firearms possession, period! :aarg :smack : censored

It simply protects someone from administrative action by the property owner/employer for keeping the firearm in your car in their parking lot.


http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC251.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0790->Section%20251#0790.251


790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.--

(1) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the "Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008."

(2) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Parking lot" means any property that is used for parking motor vehicles and is available to customers, employees, or invitees for temporary or long-term parking or storage of motor vehicles.

(b) "Motor vehicle" means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motor home, recreational vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state and required to be registered under state law.

(c) "Employee" means any person who possesses a valid license issued pursuant to s. 790.06 and:

1. Works for salary, wages, or other remuneration;

2. Is an independent contractor; or

3. Is a volunteer, intern, or other similar individual for an employer.

(d) "Employer" means any business that is a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, professional association, cooperative, joint venture, trust, firm, institution, or association, or public sector entity, that has employees.

(e) "Invitee" means any business invitee, including a customer or visitor, who is lawfully on the premises of a public or private employer.

As used in this section, the term "firearm" includes ammunition and accoutrements attendant to the lawful possession and use of a firearm.

(3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.--This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen's lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law.

(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.--No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.

(b) No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.

(c) No public or private employer shall condition employment upon either:

1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or

2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.

(d) No public or private employer shall prohibit or attempt to prevent any customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the employer's place of business because the customer's, employee's, or invitee's private motor vehicle contains a legal firearm being carried for lawful purposes, that is out of sight within the customer's, employee's, or invitee's private motor vehicle.

(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.

This subsection applies to all public sector employers, including those already prohibited from regulating firearms under the provisions of s. 790.33.

(5) DUTY OF CARE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS; IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.--

(a) When subject to the provisions of subsection (4), a public or private employer has no duty of care related to the actions prohibited under such subsection.

(b) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with this section.

(c) Nothing contained in this section shall be interpreted to expand any existing duty, or create any additional duty, on the part of a public or private employer, property owner, or property owner's agent.

(6) ENFORCEMENT.--The Attorney General shall enforce the protections of this act on behalf of any customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act. If there is reasonable cause to believe that the aggrieved person's rights under this act have been violated by a public or private employer, the Attorney General shall commence a civil or administrative action for damages, injunctive relief and civil penalties, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the provisions of s. 760.51, or may negotiate a settlement with any employer on behalf of any person aggrieved under the act. However, nothing in this act shall prohibit the right of a person aggrieved under this act to bring a civil action for violation of rights protected under the act. In any successful action brought by a customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act, the court shall award all reasonable personal costs and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the violation of rights under this act. In any action brought pursuant to this act, the court shall award all court costs and attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

(7) EXCEPTIONS.--The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:

(a) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115.

(b) Any correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47 or chapter 957.

(c) Any property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located.

(d) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which are conducted substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security.

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

(f) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer.

(g) Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of this state.

 

[Endangered Species]

I can't answer your question, but found this interesting:

(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.--No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

We often proclaim that only the government is prohibited from denying, for example, free speech rights. A private entity or website can deny free speech all it wants.

But Florida says otherwise.

 

[notalawyer]

Digging up an OLD thread here. A recent discussion came up with a friend of a friend who works for a local city - aka he is a public employee.

This gentleman drives a city-owned vehicle for work and often must go into bad, bad areas. The topic of Concealed Carry came up and somehow I was brought into the conversation. Sadly, I could not provide an answer and thought I would post it here.

If he is a public employee, driving a city/county/state owned vehicle, can he legally carry on or off body with a CCW permit?

The way that I roughly interpreted the statute is that he may not.

?

Not sure why you reopened this thread then... because as the OP clearly stated:
790.251 has noting to do with the legalities of firearms possession, period!

It simply protects folks from employment action by their employer for keeping a gun in car in the parking lot.

Of course he can legally carry, concealed, on or about his person with a CWFL. (Except in this locations listed in 790.06(12)

He can also legally have a securely encased firearm in the vehicle in accordance with 790.25(5).

He can be fired for doing so, as 7(f) clearly excepts company vehicles form the law's protection.

 

[collegeboy]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the OP might be asking, since the subject of his post is an employee of a municipality in Florida, whether the city can (as a government entity) violate the state preemption laws and issue city/municipality laws or ordinances forbidding their employees to carry while at work and/or driving city vehicles.

If that is the question, it seems the answer lies in the difference between the city issuing ordinances (laws) and having rules governing employee conduct.
No, the city cannot promulgate ordinances regarding ownership and carrying of firearms.
Yes, the city (like all employers) can have rules governing the accceptable conduct of employees while on the job.
If you choose to carry while on the job (and apparently while driving a city vehicle) you will not be doing anything illegal - but, you may be doing something that violates rules you agreed to comply with when you signed an employement agreement with the city.
You didn't say whether the entity your friend works for has rules forbidding the carry of firearms while on the job.

The state statute you referenced does not address the 'rules' the city has for their employees.

Your friend won't go to jail - but, he may have to go to the unemployment office.

 

[Mighty Hd]

We went through the policy book and did not see anything mentioned what so ever regarding carrying in a city-owned vehicle. When I say city-owned vehicle, the vehicle has "City of XXXX" on it, vehicle numbers, etc.

This seems to be a huge grey area. I consulted with another individual that works for the state. They were told not to carry in their vehicles, yet there was nothing that could be done about it if they were 'caught'. No mention of carrying in a state owned, non-leo vehicle.

Indeed...it is rather confusing. Are there any individuals who are involved with legal counsel that could provide any input?

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the OP might be asking, since the subject of his post is an employee of a municipality in Florida, whether the city can (as a government entity) violate the state preemption laws and issue city/municipality laws or ordinances forbidding their employees to carry while at work and/or driving city vehicles.

If that is the question, it seems the answer lies in the difference between the city issuing ordinances (laws) and having rules governing employee conduct.
No, the city cannot promulgate ordinances regarding ownership and carrying of firearms.
Yes, the city (like all employers) can have rules governing the accceptable conduct of employees while on the job.
If you choose to carry while on the job (and apparently while driving a city vehicle) you will not be doing anything illegal - but, you may be doing something that violates rules you agreed to comply with when you signed an employement agreement with the city.
You didn't say whether the entity your friend works for has rules forbidding the carry of firearms while on the job.

The state statute you referenced does not address the 'rules' the city has for their employees.

Your friend won't go to jail - but, he may have to go to the unemployment office.

 

[notalawyer]

We went through the policy book and did not see anything mentioned what so ever regarding carrying in a city-owned vehicle. When I say city-owned vehicle, the vehicle has "City of XXXX" on it, vehicle numbers, etc.

This seems to be a huge grey area. I consulted with another individual that works for the state. They were told not to carry in their vehicles, yet there was nothing that could be done about it if they were 'caught'. No mention of carrying in a state owned, non-leo vehicle.

Indeed...it is rather confusing. Are there any individuals who are involved with legal counsel that could provide any input?

Not a grey area at all.

He can legally carry as I described above. He can get fired for doing so.