Scratch Disneyland or Disneyworld from places where my wife, son and I will vacation.

Well Disney has the right to implement any rules for its privately owned property, that dictate what any patron or employee who agrees to pay to go to disney or who accepted thier job on the terms disney came up with. This employee has no ground to stand on, the Constitution only prevents the Federal Govt. from taking away your right to bear arms. MOst State Constitutions follow the same suit. BUt once again this only prevents the Govt. (now I'm talking state and local) from taking away your right to defend yourselves. Privately owned property is under the jurisdiction of the Owner, if said person doesn't want guns on thier property and that offends you, do what Mike Diehl says and not GO THERE.

David, the Florida Constitution says in Article 1 Section 2:

SECTION 2. Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

History.--Am. S.J.R. 917, 1974; adopted 1974; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 9, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

Parking Lots are Private Property, thats why Owners have to call the police to ticket illegal parking and have to contract thier own towing agency to tow offenders, not the local authorities. I do not agree with disney's rules, but if I had entered under contract of employment with them understanding the terms of employment and agreeing, I cannot then later change my mind because I got caught breaking Company Rules. Kinda hypacritical isn't it?

The liability aguement is crap, since they would be just as liable if you or I had a gun in our car and some one stole it and commited a crime. The real legal reason is the fear of an employee shooting. I have worked for a fortune 50 company and that was their resoning following a very standard practice. When the company went "smoke free" it banned employee smoking areas and said it was against company policy to smoke in your own car on company property, stating it was not a right when you were an employee. I found it hard to follow the logic and the policy regarding smoking and firearms, I had several employees that did not live in safe areas and had C.W.P's, I also had employee's that would go shooting after/before their shifts and had to park off company property, which was not easy or sometimes safe. I brought up the issue with a senior V.P. and he explained the fear the top brass had over work related violence. Soon after I left the company. They wanted to control you too much.

I've never particularly cared for Disney but I support their decision to fire this individual. It is private property so they can dictate what they want. I'd hate to errode property rights which IMO are just as important as 2A. It looks like this individual was looking for trouble and seems to be disgruntled. It makes sense that Disney doesn't want their underpaid and disgruntled employees with guns on premises. The amount of car break-ins at a Disney parking lot in a day is staggering. It's seems to be somewhat unsafe to have unattended firearms in a burglary rich environment where it is easy access for a criminal to grab. Perhaps they should just arm their security guards outright to provide both more protection and security.

Boycott all things Disney.
If only the founders of the large, corrupt companies of today(Disney, Wal-mart, etc.) were still alive to revive their creations, which were good ideas at the time of birth.

Sorry RJ, but I disagree.

If Disney allows firearms on their property and either an employee or guest were to secure that firearm and shoot and/or kill someone the property owner is indeed going to be named in any potential lawsuit resulting from such an action.

Even if this mess gets drug into court, I still contend Disney would rather fight this battle than have the pr nighmare of a shooting on their properties with a gun the company allowed on the premises.

This isn't about right or wrong, or legal or not. This is about public perception and Disney is trying to position themselves in the public's eye as a company that cares about their employee and guest safety by not allowing firearms on their property.

Jim