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."
Melas wrote:
BS.
It's simple contract law. You agree to abide by the conditions of the contract in order to park in your employer's lot. If you don't like the rules, pay the $5 and park in private lot.
Yes you do, as long as you have informed me that you retain that right. I'm certain that employees were forewarned of possible searches just like they are forewarned of possible random drug testing.
Do you oppose the mandatory random drug testing policies by employers?
If you are too stupid to understand what you signed, then you're too stupid to own a gun.
Oh well. Full circle. We arne't ever going to agree. If I were you however, I'd not test your theories in court.
You continue to lie and misrepresent the facts; no employer has infringed on anyone's right to carry a gun to and from work, you just believe that you are entitled to a parking spot on someone else's property under your own conditions. Not a surprising thing considering that you are a part of the entitlement generation who believes in communal ownership.
No one has made any laws.
A property owner has set conditions for the access and use of his private property.
There is no Constitutional right to self defense.
All citizens are not required to take the Oath of citizenship, as thus, nothing "binds" natural-born citizens to defend anything.
"No principle of law is better settled than that a party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objects carried out . .
The courts generally will not enforce an illegal bargain or lend their assistance to a party who seeks compensation for an illegal act.
Such agreements are "traditionally referred to as 'illegal contracts,'"
201 jones
You consider your gun, locked in your car in the parking lot, a method of self-defense against work place violence?
What you are saying is once you have safely exited the building where the shooting may be taking place, self-defense would dictate that you re-enter the building and place yourself in harm's way?
You would not be there for self-defense, you would be there for something totally unrelated to self-defense.
Where does the Second say that you have the right to self-defense?
Do you for one minute believe that this employer searched anyone's vehicle without first making random searches a condition of employment, or at least notifying employees of the possibility of a search taking place?
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
The Constitution is a document limiting the actions of government, and setting the standards on how it is run.
The Constitution is citizens telling government how to do their job...in effect, the Constitution is the workplace rules set by the employers (the people) for the employees (the government).
If the employees violate the workplace rules set forth by the Constitution, they get fired.
You want to honor and defend the Constitution?
Honor and defend property rights.
There is no Constitutional right to self defense.
207 Luis Gonzalez
You may be right about 2nd amendment rights, but what is your defense for the violation of the 4th amendment? I believe that the Constitution trumps private property rights in this case.
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I'm looking for that constitutional right to self defense that you've been harping on for days now.
Property rights are set in the State charters and statutes, and "the people" include THE PEOPLE who own that parking lot...what of their rights?
If you accept a job, with the understanding that your vehicle may be searched for guns, then the search is not unreasonable.
this is not roll back of laws, this is PROGRESS for individual rights.
The primitives who seek to impose comunism one obscure law at a time are being left in the dust bin of failure.
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.