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."
So now, you are telling me that I shuold leave for expressing my opinion?
Yeah...you're a big defender of constitutional rights alright.
What an idiot.
In the past some governments have used laws on property rights to violate Second Amendment rights.
Now some individuals & companies are doing it again, this time with the enthusiastic support of the left, as we see in the posted article.
117 jones
The Constitution restricts government from taking certain actions, but private property owners exist under no such restrictions.
Consider as an analogy the First Amendment. Every citizen has the right to protest a particular politician. But not on my property - should they attempt a political protest they'll be asked to leave, and eventially removed should they refuse. Their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech does not exist once they enter my property. This is no different.
I'm defending an employees right to bear arms to & from work.
You are defending the employers efforts to disarm employees.
Just like any other privately owned business has a right to set conditions on your access.
Just like any home or land owner has a right to set conditions on your access.
You are not allowed to carry a gun into my property unless you are a law enforcement officer or an officer of the Court and you have business on my property, you're not allowed to conduct a religious service on my property, you are not allowed to talk politics on my property.
Now, try coming on my property with a gun, try holding Mass on my yard, and try to hold a political rally on my yard and we'll settle this issue once and for all.
Better yet, I have a job offer for you...
I'll pay you to maintain my grounds.
You will be paid $1,200/week, you will receive free medical insurance as well as other benefits. You will work Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM with a break for lunch.
You will wear a uniform while you work, and there will be no music while you work; you can't wear headphones either as they will make it difficult for you to hear when I call you, you will entertain no visitors, and personal phone calls, other than while on break, are limited to emergencies only.
You will be allowed to park your car on my driveway, but you can't have a gun in your car.
Willingly breaking any of the conditions set forth will be considered forfeiting your job.
Any questions?
I don't believe this law is being used for that purpose, but it does have that effect.
You can park elsewhere and be able to carry guns to and from work.
You want to impose your will on someone else's property, and your entire argument is that you have the right to be secured in your property...it would be funny if it wasn't so damned sad how you actually work toward eroding rights while fantasizing that you are upholding them
Many things, but in the specific instance that i was alluding to, it was soil.
Why should we defend companies that are knowingly using property rights as an excuse to violate Second Amendment rights?
We are all obligated to support & defend the US Constitution, even CEO's.
jones
I'm as pro-gun as they come, but I still believe you have a right to control what is brought on your property, whether its cell phones, rifles, or stinky greaseburgers that certain colleagues of mine love to eat at their desks.
Bullshit.
Okay. Monday I'm going to hold an anti-Bush protest on my company's parking lot. After they fire me and have me removed from their property, I assume you'll be willing to donate to my defense fund, right?
After all, my company is obligated to support my First Amendment right in this matter.
So Locke thought property was other things than just soil? What else did Locke, who you referred to, include in his definition of property?
You will be allowed to park your car on my driveway, but you can't have a gun in your car.
Any questions?
125
"We all own private property, and we all are bound to support and defend the Constitutions & laws of the US."
jones
Probably because upon the beginning of your employment term he'd require you to sign a consent to search your car. At that point you can either leave or sign the form - but if you sign you no longer have the right to claim your employer cannot terminate you for items it finds in the car.
This is standard for most corporations (and I assume Weyerhauser as well).
Um, no it's not, unless you're a pantywaist liberty snatching liberal.
Now they fear the Oklahoman ruling will encourage the powerful gun lobby all over America to try to roll back the reforms.
Techically, I think the word "reform" is supposed to refer to when you make something better, not worse.
Did you take the oath of citizenship?
I've often wondered about that law. What if you LIVE with 1000 feet of the school, especially if you lived there before the school was built?? 1000 feet is almost a quarter of a mile and many schools are located in residential neighbornoods. In a subdivion with small lots, that could be 100-150 homes. Even some small towns have 30-50 schools.
Why do you think you have a right to search my locked car for a gun?
jones
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.