Case Name: Henry Ellis PELT, P.E., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-12-11
Citations: 664 So. 2d 320
Docket Number: No. 93-3372
Parties: Henry Ellis PELT, P.E., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.
Judges: DAVIS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 664
Pages: 320–323

Head Matter:
Henry Ellis PELT, P.E., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.
No. 93-3372.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 11, 1995.
Henry Ellis Pelt, pro se.
Thornton J. Williams & Marianne A. Trus-sel of Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
WENTWORTH, Senior Judge.
This is an appeal of a Public Employees Relations Commission order adopting findings of a hearing officer and concluding that the appellee Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) properly imposed a five-day suspension on its employee Henry Ellis Pelt, appellant.
Pelt was suspended for violation of DOT Rule 14—17.012(4)(a)20, Florida Administrative Code, prohibiting "the use . or the possession of an unauthorized weapon or firearm on Department property or on the job site." The order finds no dispute as to the fact that Pelt possessed a handgun while traveling on DOT business with a railroad crossing inspection team in a rural wooded area. During a break, Pelt positioned an old television set against a nearby tree, removed a handgun from the agency vehicle, walked a short distance from the car, fired at the television set four or five times to test his new gun, and replaced it under the car seat.
Pelt was aware of the above cited agency rule and never asked for clarification, but said he believed he was allowed to carry a firearm at work because he had obtained a license under Section 790.06, Florida Statutes, which license stated:
This license authorizes you to carry a concealed weapon or firearm for lawful self-defense . It does not authorize the use of such weapon or firearm. Lawful use is regulated by other provisions of Florida law.
Pelt has been a DOT employee for 29 years and at the time in question held a position as Professional Engineer Administrator in Tallahassee. His former supervisor, five years earlier, knew Pelt obtained his weapons permit during a period of time he worked in other areas. His present supervisor was not aware of the permit, and no supervisor ever knew that Pelt carried a firearm at work or discussed or authorized him to arm himself. A fellow employee on the inspection team led by Pelt did know that Pelt carried a gun. The only employees DOT had authorized to carry weapons were sworn law enforcement officers who served as weight inspectors.
Pelt argued that Section 790.33, Florida Statutes, preempts DOT from regulating the possession and use of firearms by employees, and that the agency rule should be construed to apply only to possession or use of firearms not authorized under Section 790.33. We are persuaded by the reasoning of the hearing officer herein as follows:
Section 790.33 is directed toward local governments' regulation of the conduct of its citizenry, not to an employer's regulation of the conduct of its employees. Sound policy reasons exist for allowing an employer, be it public or private, to regulate the conduct of its employees as it relates to the possession and use of firearms. These relate to the safety of its employees and others who may be injured by the weapons, and the exposure of an employer to liability for the actions of its employees. State agencies commonly regulate employee conduct in this area. See, e.g., Fla.Admin.Code Rule 4E-1.006(4)(v) prohibiting employees of the Department of Insurance from possessing unauthorized firearms while on duty; Rule 17.130-800 prohibiting employees of the Department of Environmental Regulation (now Department of Environmental Protection) from possessing or use of unauthorized firearms; and Rule 33-4.002(27) prohibiting employees of the Department of Corrections from the unauthorized possession of firearms while on duty. Indeed, the Commission has affirmed an agency's application of its rules of conduct in this area to discipline employees. See Davis v. Department of Corrections, 4 FCSR ¶ 159 (1989), and Incardona v. Department of Corrections, 3 FCSR ¶ 013 (1988).
. The Agency does not recognize Pelt's license as the requisite authorization to possess or use a firearm while on Agency, business.... [I]n a similar case wherein an employee was in possession of a firearm that had not been authorized by his employer, the Commission affirmed the discipline of that employee notwithstanding his State license to carry a concealed weapon. Davis v. Department of Corrections, 4 FSCR ¶ 159 (1989).
AFFIRMED.
DAVIS, J., concurs.
ZEHMER, C.J., dissents with opinion.