Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
Gun-toting, tough-talking, and anti-establishment to his muddy boot straps, Larry Mullens is an Oklahoman "good ole boy" personified.
He is also fast becoming a classic American folk hero as he takes centre stage in a revolt of gun owners that is reverberating in boardrooms across the United States. The son of one of the last of the old-style Wild West ranchers, he first fired a gun as a boy.
Now he carries his trusty Winchester in his pick-up on his way to work at a sawmill in case he comes across a coyote, a wild dog or even a wolf attacking his small herd of steers. Last year he lost five calves to wild dogs.
So it was perhaps not surprising that he was enraged when his previous employer fired him for breaking company security rules that banned guns from the company car park after they found a .38 pistol stashed behind the seat of his pick-up.
No one could have predicted that two years later he and his backers would claim an extraordinary revenge - a law allowing employees to keep guns in locked cars on company property.
Just two days after a gunman jumped on to a stage in Columbus, Ohio, and shot dead a heavy metal guitarist and three others before himself being shot dead, it might seem surprising to hear that elsewhere a state is extending gun owners' rights.
But in Oklahoma, as across much of rural America, gun control is seen as the work of naive and meddling minds.
"Having a gun is no different from having a hammer. It is just a tool," said Jerry Ellis, a Democratic representative in the state legislature who drafted and pushed through the law.
"Here, gun control is when you hit what you shoot at."
The passage of the law resounded like one of Larry Mullens's Winchester rifle shots through the boardrooms of America.
In recent years companies have been implementing anti-gun policies in an attempt to cut down on violence at the work place.
Now they fear the Oklahoman ruling will encourage the powerful gun lobby all over America to try to roll back the reforms.
Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says.
"It's the most irresponsible piece of legislation I've seen in my 25 years in the business," he said. "I would invite anyone who'd allow people to bring firearms to work to write the first death notice.
"The argument that emp-loyees should be allowed to bring firearms to work because they'll be locked in the car is so absurd it barely merits a response."
Several companies are trying to block the law. Two days before it was due to come into force last month, a judge granted a temporary restraining order preventing it from taking effect. The next hearing is on Tuesday.
But the firms are fighting on unfavourable terrain. Contrary to the widespread impression that the nation is polarised between gun-loving Republicans and more liberal Democrats, in the heartland gun control spans party lines. The law passed unanimously in Oklahoma's Senate and by 92 votes to four in the House.
Mike Wilt, a Republican, voted against the law, not on security grounds but because he believes the state should not dictate gun policies to property owners. "Here in Oklahoma the issue of guns is not a wedge issue," he said. "We all go hunting together and we all tend to have the same beliefs."
Two weeks ago one of the principal plaintiffs, Whirlpool, a prominent supplier of white goods, withdrew from the case. It said it was satisfied that its ban on guns on its property was not affected. The gun lobby suspects that the decision had more to do with talk of a boycott of the firm.
Nowhere do feelings run more strongly than in Valliant, a small town where, on Oct 1, 2002, at the Weyerhaeuser paper mill, the row began.
Mr Mullens was one of four on-site employees who were sacked after guns were found in their vehicles in contravention of a new company ruling. They are convinced it was just an excuse to lay off workers and insist they did not know about the new security laws.
The firm, which is locked in litigation with the fired employees, rejects the charges and says everyone knew it had a zero-tolerance approach to security. "You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser," said Jim Keller, the firm's senior vice-president. "Safety is our number one priority.
"It's more important to tell someone they don't have a job than to have to tell a family that their loved one is not coming home from work. This is about safety; it's not about guns."
But the people of Valliant, where the high school closes down during the prime week in the deer-hunting season to allow pupils to shoot, will not be easily assuaged.
James Burrell, an assistant at the local gun shop, said: "Most people around here think the new law is already a right."
Mr Mullens has now found a new job, where his employer is less pernickety.
"People tell me to 'stick to my guns' because they are all carrying one too," he said. "The bottom line is that it is our constitutional right to have a gun in the car."
Batrachian wrote:
Put emotion aside and think this through. You can't use the 2nd Amendment to destroy private property rights.
You may have a point if you can show me where an employee is compelled to park in the employer's lot. However,I know of no such ordinance in any place that I know of, so I'm extremely skeptical.
I agree (but)... ;)
This is a continuation of the multiple laws driven by those on the left that infringe on the rights of property owners. The ban on smoking in restaurants and bars passed in many cities is the closest example. We have given up something to allow for what has been determined to be an overriding right, clean air and health.
That I didn't agree with them, and spoke/voted against it is no longer the point. The laws have been upheld and complaining about them is pointless. They ARE. Deal with it.
So now it's the same thing, but those on the political left are those being asked to modify property rights to allow a greater need, the right to self defense, to prevail. This time I agree and think that the needs of individuals to the right of self defense should override property.
No one is saying that an individual can't carry a gun in their vehicle...they just can't park it on another individual's private property because the property owner's right to set the conditions of access and use of his property begin at the property line.
Your entire argument has always been that someone other than the rightful owner of property can set rules and conditions on land that belongs to someone else.
Yours is not only a ridiculous argument, it's also circular, because it relies on the same property rights that you are arguing you should be able to violate.
Post proof of that.
In a word. Yes. I even called a friend in NYC a bit ago and asked him, and he said of course not. He's free to park in a private garage if he doesn't want to park in his company garage.
They don't even have to drive to wrok.
The government in the past, used laws restricting Second Amendment rights to violate property rights, now they are doing it again, this time with the enthusiastic support of the right.
John Locke maintained that private property rights are the cornerstone of all other rights, and it was it was out of this philosophical heritage that America's founders created a new nation, based on the principle that each individual is a sovereign within his own right. Property rights then became the acknowledged foundation upon which other constitutional freedoms rested, including freedom of speech and to bear arms. It was not until this century, when private property came under relentless ideological assault, that the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution were subjected to ambiguous and convoluted contention.
Do you really think that company employees can park anywhere they want in most localities?
jones
I do it daily.
I can park in my driveway and jog to work, park in a pay lot and walk the rest of the way in, I can take a cab, I can ride my bike, I can roller skate in, I can use a skateboard, I can use a unicycle...
You don't have to work there, do you?
Or do you believe that you're entitled to the job?
The name "Michael Bloomberg" comes to mind...
I see this law as not much different from a smoking ban. Both involve government telling a private entity what it can or cannot allow on its property.
What did Locke define "property" as?
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
The government in the past, used laws restricting Second Amendment rights to violate property rights, now they are doing it again, this time with the enthusiastic support of the right.
Yes, and it's foolish and dangerous in my opinion. It's also their right as individuals and companies to do whatever they want. If another company requires as a condition of employment that every employee must carry a gun, I'd support that as well.
Are we now to only defend property rights for those owners who agree with us?
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
I can park in my driveway and jog to work, park in a pay lot and walk the rest of the way in, I can take a cab, I can ride my bike, I can roller skate in, I can use a skateboard, I can use a unicycle.
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
You don't have to work there, do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.