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."
Because it's on my property. You don't have to park it on my property if you don't want to.
Do you accept the terms and conditions of the job?
Now you have to come up with a law that made it illegal for employers to disallow guns on their property.
The Second does not apply in that case, as it restricts the Federal Government from placing restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms, and does not apply to private citizens on private property.
I'll ask again...did YOU take the Oath of Citizenship?
There's no violation of law here - simply one property owner consenting to a search of his property by another.
You never answered - how much money will you be donating to my legal defense fund?
If you invite me onto your property, you invite my rights with me, including my GUN.
If you want no guns on your property, invite noone.
BTW, employees do NOT give up their rights for pay, except for US Military (US v. Feres, 1957).
I did not ask whether you had Pledge Allegiance to the flag, I asked whether you had taken the Oath of Citizenship.
You claimed that everyone was "bound" to its content.
Now...it's a rather simple question:
Did YOU ever PERSONALLY swear the Oath of Citizenship that you posted?
So then, my First Amendment rights equally supersedes property rights, and Jim has no right to ban people from this forum with whom he disagrees.
If your argument is correct, then so is mine, and I know you know that mine is not correct.
If by law you must refrain from searching their person and property and thus are unable to ascertain their possession of drugs, you should be able to defeat the asset forfeiture. So this law, if it applied to drugs as well, would probably carve out an exception to their right to seize the property of a third party, at least in the parking lot scenario. If the third party was the owner of the VEHICLE, that might be a different story.
Many things, but in the specific instance that i was alluding to, it was soil.
====
Many things, but in the specific instance that i was alluding to, it was soil
So Locke thought property was other things than just soil? What else did Locke, who you referred to, include in his definition of property?
133 posted on 12/11/2004 2:53:32 PM CST
===
No answer yet?
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
"the law has a long history of recognizing the general rule that certain contracts, though properly entered into in all other respects, will not be enforced, or at least will not be enforced fully, if found to be contrary to public policy."
Now you have to come up with a law that made it illegal for employers to disallow guns on their property.
The Second does not apply in that case, as it restricts the Federal Government from placing restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms, and does not apply to private citizens on private property.
I carry my rights with me.
If you don't like my rights, you have the right to post a sign on your private property.
Something like: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS HERE.
Does this mean, I can't have my bible?
Even if the employer allows another to wear his face covered because of Religion?
Does this mean, the company can tell me what to eat? What to drink?
Ask the Dead Post office employees about gun security?
Ask the Xerox office employees about gun security?
Ask the Columbine students who died or their parents about gun security?
Ask the 300 Russian children and teachers about Gun security?
When, AND IT WILL HAPPEN, a school is taken over because of this STUPID GUN FREE ZONE rule in America, and students and teachers are killed, Please scream "THE LAW SAID THEY WEREN"T ALLOWED to have a GUN in SCHOOL. MAYBE then YOU"LL LEARN that CRIMINALS don't give a D*MN about Laws, I pray my Son's school isn't the 1 were more people die PROMOTING STUPIDITY.
I agree in a Perfect world, IT AIN”T gonna exist until GOD RETURNS, NOT ALLAH, we won’t need ANY Protection! Ask the People in the WORLD TRADE towers what they did to die!
Ask the 40,000 people (we know about) SADDEM, gassed, Poisoned, shot, beheaded, raped, tortured, buried alive, burned alive, maimed, what they think about GUN Control. Ask the people who die from guns in NEW YORK, and WASHINGTON (WHICH HAVE THE STRONGEST GUN LAWS IN AMERICA).
Now ask Vermont, which as the Least GUN Laws in America, and the least number deaths per person per state in America.
as that figure is about half the total murders, and about equal to all the firearm murders, I think Paul is including guys knocking over the 7-11 and drug turf killings as "work place murders"
You are seriously suggesting you have the Entitlement to search the vehicles of people who visit your home? You don't, and you don't deserve an explanation why not.
Only a moron would waste time posting that I don't deserve an explanation. I mean, why bother typing how you're not going to explain something? Just go ahead and don't explain it.
Then park at the curb....
NeverGore :^)
What about the basic Rights of the vehicle owner?
And don't give me this "he can go work elsewhere" crap.
Under such logic, a kompany could do the following:
Fire a woman for refusing to sleep with the boss.
Fire an employee with 40 years service on the day before he retires so that the korporation won't have to pay out a big pension.
Require that all employees vote for a certain candidate for political office.
And so on. And kompanies have done ALL of these things, many times over, which is one reason they are regulated. When dishonest korporations screw honest folks over, gov't gets involved, as they should when the Rights of individual citizens are at stake.
Even if the employee signed a document, before being hired, no lawful court would recognize it, since no sane man or woman would sign away their rights, unless due to fraud or force. You can't sign away your basic rights. Any such contract is "null and void".
You've gotten off on this libertarian "perfect world" tangent akin to L. Neil Smith writing about talking dolphins in a parallel universe.
While I admire the idealism of you and some of the other posters here, y'all need to deal with reality.
The reality is that 1) individual Rights (particularly the RKBA) are under full assault in this nation at all levels, and 2) the federal gov't and large korporations are getting tied closer and closer together, such that much of the national statist agenda is getting enacted at the korporate level.
As such, whenever ANY steps are taken to protect our basic Rights, I'll support it.
I honestly don't understand why so many people on this thread are taking the side of the kompany. Do y'all really believe that this judge's ruling (overturning the Oklahoma law) is the first step in a movement that will actually restore property Rights in this country?
Anyone that believes that is a sucker, at best.
But I'll tell you what. Ping me once this judge overturns ALL restrictions on "private property" and ALL restrictions on gov't infringement on the RKBA, and I might concur with your argument then.
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.