Blaming Disney for using gun-law loophole is off target

The law clearly states: explosive materials as a primary part of their business.

Is this Disney's primary part of their business? NO

Disney will lose!

I hope Disney loses another 250 million in a lawsuit that could have been easily avoided and screws their investors with this nonsense!

well guess what, every soldier a their families should boycott disney. they are anti american . crimes are commited for the most part by people who illegally own a weapon, nor conceal permit holders. whats the diffrence of that guard having a weapon for work and a weapon locked in his car for his own protection. i call on all you brothers in arms to boycott disney, only he whom has fear of an employee having a weapon is a crook.
DE OPPRESSO LIBER

I wonder how many companies will be applying for that permit.
Disney 1, NRA 0

Law applies to all equally Mr. Thomas, whether Disney cares to believe that or not. You stated:

"Just as the law was to take effect earlier this month, Disney pointed out a loophole that, roughly translated, said this: We're exempt."

Just because a Disney lawyer says it's so, does not mean that it is so. This case will be decided, eventually, by those qualified to properly interpret. Quite frankly, you are no more, or less, qualified in this respect than I am.

I say that this exemption will apply to the particular areas wherein fireworks, or explosives, are manufactured and stored, and those isolated areas only - Disney's primary business is certainly not manufacturing explosives. This permit that they hold also has other qualifications and requirements that pertain to SPECIFIC areas and to the handling of stated explosives, but not all 30,000 + acres and all employees are guided by the rules and requirements of the permit. You cannot have one application using (or abusing) the permit and its existence without accepting the other.

The mouse has outsmarted no one at this point. Disney lawyers have merely asserted their position on the issue. That is it.

I am willing to bet that Disney PAID for that extra wording... Now the lawmakers are just trying to make themselves look good. They knew EXACTLY what was going on. Stupid law anyways.

Its not about Disney. Its about the employee that needs to protect him or herself to and from work at Disney along the crime ridden streets of Orlando and Kissimme. If they cannot leave their guns locked in their cars while at work at Disney, then they must leave them at home. The NRA will not, and should not "get over it". The law was written for the purpose stated above. If Disney cannot comply with the law, then their Explosives License should be revoked negating their "so called exemption". If tourists need to see fireworks when they go to Disney, they can go to the Republic of California and visit Disney World.

sniper wrote:

well guess what, every soldier a their families should boycott disney. they are anti american . crimes are commited for the most part by people who illegally own a weapon, nor conceal permit holders. whats the diffrence of that guard having a weapon for work and a weapon locked in his car for his own protection. i call on all you brothers in arms to boycott disney, only he whom has fear of an employee having a weapon is a crook.
DE OPPRESSO LIBER

De Oppresso Liber!

I agree with you 100%. I for one will not be visiting Disney. Not that they'll miss my business.

To Mr. Thomas,

Your opinion is tantamount to a propaganda piece. Just because you say something is so doesn't make it so. You make some very bold assertions that may seem like facts, however when scrutinized are simply your overstated opinion. The truth is this will be decided in court (whether Mr. Sotomayer is the test case or someone else is). If the law is tossed out, as many speculate, later this month then the legislators will likely go "back to the drawing board." This law was meant to protect employees from being fired for the sole reason of doing what IS ALREADY LEGAL ACCORDING TO FS790. The law isn't necessary, but was suppossed to prevent actions such as Disney took. Now I understand the federal permit Disney is claiming exempts them. We'll see. It seems to me that Disney's primary part of business isn't fireworks (otherwise they need not be open during the day, have all those rides, etc...) It also seems that if this permit is a blanket exemption from firearms across the whole park, it would be reasonable that many other activities would be restricted as well. Disney can't have it both ways.

Why would want to leave a gun lockup in a hot car?
The way thing are going here in Central FL, leaving a gun in your car is just asking for it to get stolen.
Just ask a few law enforcement people who left their cars parked in front of their homes.

By all means please do let criminals have easy access to weapons and allow disgruntled employees to threaten & kill people at the work place.
OH WAIT!! I forgot, Live in the happiest place on earth.

Truth wrote:

The law clearly states: explosive materials as a primary part of their business.
Is this Disney's primary part of their business? NO
Disney will lose!
I hope Disney loses another 250 million in a lawsuit that could have been easily avoided and screws their investors with this nonsense!

I haven't looked at the wording of this new bill but if you're correct, and I assume you are, then all this hype we've been reading from the Sentinel and Mike Thomas in particular is embarassing to us as a community.

Obviously Disney's primary business or even primary part of their business is not explosives. That should be obvious to everyone even Mike Thomas. Sure, they shoot fireworks but so do a lot of places.

It doesn't alarm me much that Disney would try such a trick because we now understand they are underhanded and it doesn't even surprise me that the liberal media (a.k.a. The Sentinel) would side with them. What bothers me is that the Sentinel would leave this very critical wording out of their articles. Why? Why would a newspaper that is already on the verge of meltdown take a situation and completely distort its meaning by leaving out critical wording.

I would like to be able to go back and read the previous articles on this because the impression I got was that those places that were exempt ONLY HAD TO POSSESS EXPLOSIVES in their business. The words PRIMARY PART OF THEIR BUSINESS makes all the difference doesn't it Mike?

1. Disney did indeed empoy lobbyists to put that wording in. If legislators keep putting stuff into law without understanding consequences, we need new legislators.
2. That security gaurd who was fired has no case. This is an at will state. Having principles contrary to a corporate employers is not a protected category. The man was technically fired for not permitting security thugs to search his vehicle. Before you guys start shouting about warrants and about how you would never permit any employer to search your vehicle or sign any paper permitting them to search their vehicle, you probably have when you acknowledged your receipt of an employee manual. It's in there.
3. No one forced this guy to open his trunk. Even with security gaurds and prostituted Sheriffs deputies there to intimidate him, the guy didn't cooperate and there wsn't a damn thing they could do about it. Except fire him.
4. The word privelege is an old Anglo-French word that comes from the roots "private law". Disney is used to the legislature dancing to the corporate tune. Why should this be different? Disney gets a lot of stuff from the goverment. Clear airspace, tax breaks, and corporate municipalities are among the many perks of an easily purchased legislature.

I do believe that Disney spends more on fireworks than any other company in the world. I'd say it's kind of a big deal to the theme parks.

ryan wrote:

I do believe that Disney spends more on fireworks than any other company in the world. I'd say it's kind of a big deal to the theme parks.

A 15 minute show right before the parks close can hardly be considered their primary business.

All those other rides, shows and attractions, food and beverages, souveniers, et al, are just sidelines at Disney parks?

Yes, the law uses the term "primary'' business in reference to a company's use of explosives. But then it says "OR'' a company holding the explosives permit.
Also, what is the definition of "primary?''
This law is deeply flawed. Look for the federal judge to toss it within a month or two.
Now, I'm off to buy some 9 mm range ammo at Wal-Mart. A box of 50 for only $9.

Does anyone know where this bill is located on the Internet? Hopefully it won't be a site that takes the freedom to add, change or delete the original wording.

I think we're all missing the point of Mike's article: He says a law that requires so many exemptions is a bad law. I agree with him.
It's unfortunate that our state has so many needs -- a poor real estate market, small job growth, limited funding for people with disabilities, stupidly-high property taxes -- that this issue of whether you can or can't keep a gun in your glove compartment in your car at work is dominating the headlines.
Kinda reminds you of the "emperer has no clothes." Focus on the unimportant stuff so we don't worry about the stuff that actually impacts us.

Mike Thomas wrote:

Yes, the law uses the term "primary'' business in reference to a company's use of explosives. But then it says "OR'' a company holding the explosives permit.
Also, what is the definition of "primary?''
This law is deeply flawed. Look for the federal judge to toss it within a month or two.
Now, I'm off to buy some 9 mm range ammo at Wal-Mart. A box of 50 for only $9.

They dropped the price? I saw the 100 round range boxes for $19.98 yesterday.

The guard does have a case. Under the new law, it is ILLEGAL for the company to even ask about the gun in the car. It is further ILLEGAL for a company to search only for a gun. WDW broke the law twice here, and under the new law, the guard has the right to sue. It is now up to WDW to prove that it is exempt under the new law. BTW--the security guy is covered under a union contract (as are many at WDW), so the "at will" thing does not apply.

You are off base. It is unfortunate that you fail to understand it is our right to protect ourselves. If the law is the law then Disney's liberal mentality has created another example where they think they are above the law. It is amazing that you could possibly stand up for them and now show how idiotic your comments are.

I'm really surprised so many people support this law. It is all about forcing private property owners to permit things to happen on their property that they don't want. How is that acceptable?

The Supreme Court recently confirmed that the D.C. handgun ban went too far because it dictated that gun owners could not have a weapon in their own homes; i.e. on their own private property. The Supreme Court did not state that the Second Amendment could be used by the coercive power of the state to force another private property owner to permit weapons owned by another person onto that property.

I believe the law will be tossed on that basis alone. If private property owners do not have to permit free speech, assembly, religion, etc. on their property (and they don't), they certainly don't have to permit firearms.

Rusty wrote:

The guard does have a case. Under the new law, it is ILLEGAL for the company to even ask about the gun in the car. It is further ILLEGAL for a company to search only for a gun. WDW broke the law twice here, and under the new law, the guard has the right to sue. It is now up to WDW to prove that it is exempt under the new law. BTW--the security guy is covered under a union contract (as are many at WDW), so the "at will" thing does not apply.

Interestingly,I haven't seen any union support mentioned in this incident.Usually, if the union thought a person was "wronged" according to the person's "contract" they are all over it.