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."
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
I'm looking for that constitutional right to self defense that you've been harping on for days now.
placemark
I didn't say it was Constitutional. Nonetheless, it's a right anyway. Just because it isn't specifically written down means nothing. EVERY living thing has and exercises that right. From grass (deep roots) to trees (thick bark) to bees (stingers) and the various levels of camouflage, teeth, claw and large brained, tool using Humans.
Issuing a blanket statement forbidding guns on a property is neither search nor seizure. Again, the individual is not required to enter the property. It's his choice, but if he chooses to do so then he has to abide by the owner's requirements.
Issuing a blanket statement forbidding guns on a property is neither search nor seizure. Again, the individual is not required to enter the property.
225 Batrachian
Searching vehicles without probable cause is the issue.
He was fired after they searched his vehicle and found a gun.
Private property rights do not relieve the owner of PC (probable cause) before searching.
They could deny access if one refused to allow the search, but they must have probable cause to search without your permission.
The US Constitution and the laws of all 50 states support this.
Where is the part about any of the fired employees signing an agreement allowing their cars to be searched? You can't just pull 'FACTS' out of nowhere to try to support your position.
I have seen dozens of courthouses that have banned weapons and even search everyone who enters, but I have never seen one that seaches cars in the lot without probable cause.
HAVE YOU?
Please give one example of a courthouse that does this.
That's an educated guess based upon parking agreements I've signed in the past. It may be correct, or it may be wrong. However, the odds are that it's correct as these things tend to be rather boilerplate.
Thank you for your kind words.
"I honestly don't understand why so many people on this thread are taking the side of the kompany."
Because the "kompany" is owned by individuals, free individuals, and it is their private property. I think a liberty lover like you would agree with this assertion.
"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."
Read the article at the following link below for a report on a "judge" moving in your direction.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kranna12dec12,1,7134499.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
We'll just have to follow the case. Educated guesses are not admissible, so the employer will have to produce an agreement to search or it won't fly.
Where did I say that a Federal Courthouse searched cars?
That however, doesn't mean that an employer can't stipulate that as a condition of employment, does it?
If you don't like the employer's workplace rules then your choices are either to park someplace other than the employer's private property (his parking lot), or work elsewhere.
It's really this simple: you are not entitled to dictate what rules a property owner can set as a condition of access to their private property, your choice is to either accept those conditions or not, if you don't, then you don't have access to the property.
You can't tell a property owner that you refuse to abide by his wishes, and enter his property...that's called trespassing.
And in virtually all those workplaces, it was already against the law to have a gun.
To a rational person, this might suggest the law is not working.
But then, we're dealing wtih the victims of hoplophobia, here, and they're NOT rational.
Only a liberal would find this surprising.
Only a liberal would even think the two were related.
It's really this simple: you are not entitled to dictate what rules a property owner can set as a condition of access to their private property, your choice is to either accept those conditions or not, if you don't, then you don't have access to the property.
233 Luis Gonzalez
Do you feel that you are entitled to, or have a right to that job?
It's not a Constitutional condition, no matter how much you want it to be.
When you are traveling to and from work, you are not being paid, so you are not an employee, when you enter some else's property, you are there at their discretion and according to their rules of access and continued stay.
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
It's not a Constitutional condition, no matter how much you want it to be.
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.