Disney fires security guard for violating gun policy

Posted Tuesday, July 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Walt Disney World fired a security guard on Monday after he protested the company's decision not to allow people with concealed weapons permits to keep guns in their cars on Disney property. Disney terminated ___, 36, of Orlando for violating three Disney employee policies. At issue is Florida's new law that allows people with concealed weapons permits to keep firearms in their vehicles in employee parking lots.

Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008 11:55 AM
eightdotthree's avatar I don't understand the desire to carry guns in your car or on your person to the point of losing your job over it.
+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 12:00 PM
Jeff's avatar It's a pointless gesture in Ohio, because pretty much every business everywhere has signage exercising their right to prohibit the gun on their property, where you'd be breaking the law. So it's like, unless you just walk around the streets with your gun and don't go anywhere, it's pretty silly.
+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 12:04 PM
As a Walt Disney World Resort employee, i can honestly say that Disney has no trouble firing people over this, or over pretty much any breach of policy.
For every person that does not want to abide by Disney's standards there are probably more than plenty who will.
You are replaceable.
+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 1:59 PM
janfrederick's avatar ^ Just to be clear...Disney World...not "Land". (read: labor shortage) ;)
+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 2:47 PM
Excuse me, But if Im in a buisness, school or anwhere and some outlaw or maniac comes in firing. I sure as heck hope someone else has one to stop em.

This is all insurance mandated BS thats bascially making crime more prevalent. Go to southern KY or TN where everybody leaves their house open even if they areent home. The Deterent is EVERYBODY HAS ONE. Not just the criminals and the neighbor is as likely to solve the problem as the homeowner.

Gee a Securtity guy with a gun. Im supposed to be terrified?

Chuck, who'd be THANKFUL!

+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 3:34 PM
Jeff's avatar Maybe the deterrent is that they have nothing of value to steal. People leave their doors open in Canada too, but probably because no one will be coming in with a gun.
+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 4:25 PM
Hmmmm... I always guns were standard issue for Disney employees... at least upper management...

"You will have fun... you will smile... or else."

+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 4:43 PM
eightdotthree's avatar People leave their doors open in a lot of places, it has nothing to do with guns. Charles, your saying that if everyone in Detroit had a gun there would be no crime?
+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 5:01 PM
I am pretty certain that most Motown residents pack heat.
+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 5:11 PM

Excuse me, But if Im in a buisness, school or anwhere and some outlaw or maniac comes in firing. I sure as heck hope someone else has one to stop em.

Outlaw? What is this, the wild west?

When has a private citizen carrying a gun ever stopped someone from shooting up some place? If you're crazy to walk into a shopping mall, a school, or a place like Disney and start firing at random people, chances are you're probably crazy enough that the threat of concealed weapons isn't going to be much of a deterrent.

-Nate

+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 5:14 PM
sws's avatar Maybe the Disney employee brought the gun just in case Tigger went on another rampage. :)
+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 6:57 PM
rollergator's avatar I'm just going to throw out the first few words of the Second Amendment, make one comment, then I'll shut up:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Of course, once the National Guard is busy overseas....

+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 7:16 PM
How true Gator. Well, at least Texas has it right.
+0
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 11:58 PM
Has anyone here even glanced at Scalia's opinion in DC v Heller?

I have only really glanced at it and read a tiny portion so far, but the right is an individual right, and one I think is needed to this day. The right to bear arms is more than protection against a foreign threat, or even a deterrent of crime. The right to bear arms also protects us against domestic threats, such as out of control governments. Would the USA even exist today if it wasn't for the colonial people having weapons?

Our "Founding Fathers" would probably be rolling over in their graves if they saw what has become of our great country. Where is the freedom? Democrats could care less about freedom, and Republicans aren't much better. (The only freedoms I see Democrats fighting for are insignificant compared to the freedoms they have worked to take away!)

Anyway, I need to read the opinion, and suggest others do too. For the most part, I like Scalia, (though I don't like the very end of his opinion in this case).

The above comments are in response to the other comments on this thread. I have yet to read the article.

By the way, here is the link to the opinion for DC v Heller: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

-Sam

+0
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 1:23 AM
Jeff's avatar I love how everyone always knows what the founding fathers would think. As if they anticipated a world with the Internet, Wal-Mart, and an enemy not associated with any particular state. Yeah, you'd know exactly what they'd think.

And I think Scalia can be a tool.

+0
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:49 AM
eightdotthree's avatar The founding fathers never anticipated the world growing at such an alarming rate and us living in such close quarters. My house is attached to another five! Things are different now compared to then, we need to think different as well.
+0
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 11:32 AM
rollergator's avatar ^^The founding fathers would certainly approve of today's highly-anticipated gutting of the 4th Amendment. Good thing we weren't using our right to privacy - now it's almost gone.

Want "surveillance"? Get a warrant! ;)

+0
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 6:24 PM
Actually, the right to privacy is not guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to privacy was actually invented by Griswald v Connecticut.

While I say invented, I understand that the right may have already exsisted before the Supreme Court got involved. But until Griswald v Connecticut, the right was not guaranteed!

-Sam

+0
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:13 PM
Did ANYONE read the ACTUAL article?

Disney "claims" exemption from state law because they "say" they have "explosives" on site.

The Lawmakers who wrote the law intended for this to mean bombs and missles; NOT Disney fireworks.

A LAW ABIDING Security Gaurd, who may well put himself at risk being in such a populated area, wants Disney to abide by the intent of the State Law.

I don't see the problem here. I'd want my Dad, a lifetime cop, to be legal if he took a part time job at Disney. He carries guns all the time normally. It would be foolish for him to think that when his his uniform is off, the bad guys grudges magically go away.

Be carefull what you wish for. My Dad, a cop, may not be able to protect you if he doesn't have the magic uniform on.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...