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."
By the way...when you are traveling to work you can stop and have a few beers and nothing happens to you, when you arrive at work drunk, you get fired.
When you're traveling home from work, you can stop and have a few beers, and your job will not be impacted...unless of course you get arrested, and can't make it to work the following day, in which case you get fired.
Is that a Constitutional issue too?
No.
It is about trespassing.
Try remaining on my property after I've asked you to leave it because I see that you're carrying a weapon, and rest your argument on your Constitutional rights.
Let's see which one of use lands in jail after I've forcefully thrown you off my property, and let's see which one of us is either jailed or fined as a result of the incident.
And if you shoot me, you will be charged with a crime, and I will not.
Now wait a minute...it isn't illegal for you to drink, so why would it be legal for an employer to fire for drinking OFF the job?
Could it possibly be because the employer has the right to set workplace rules?
By your logic you should be allowed to sue a business anytime you walk through a metal detector. The Oak. law will be struck down since it is laughable.
Dear Mulder,
"Right-to-work" is different from "at-will" employment.
"Right-to-work," as you point out, is about the status of unions and closed shops.
"At-will" employment means that your employer can fire you "at-will" for any reason at any time. And you can quit your job "at-will" for any reason at any time.
"At-will" employment is conditioned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and similar and related legislation, and by various state laws and judicial precedents.
Generally, exceptions to at-will doctrine are made at the federal level for race, religion, color, gender, and national origin. Also, there are certain limited exceptions made for dismissals that would violate "public policy." As an example, you can't fire someone because they refuse to commit a felony.
But in most states, you CAN fire people because: you don't like 'em; you disagree with their politics; they are homosexual (although a growing number of states forbid that); they refuse to follow work rules that don't impinge on the five protected categories mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the pregnancy protection law.
In any event, if an employer creates a rule barring possession of widgets on its property, properly informs all workers of the rule, and provides a clear process of discipline for violating that rule, even where employment at-will is weakest, the employer will generally be upheld. It doesn't matter whether "widgets" are guns or garbage cans, employers have a right to determine what will come on to their property and what will stay off their property.
Issues of enforcement get trickier.
sitetest
Employers have always had the right to set workplace rules that do not infringe on employees Constitutional rights.
Some employers have the right to fire you depending upon your behavior off the job, such as smoking and driving habits.
Excellent post. While I do come down on the side of the property owners rights, these policies don't just affect employees while they are on company property. It affects their safety during much of the day.
Also, there are certain limited exceptions made for dismissals that would violate "public policy."
sitetest 248
One wonders how many of these job site murders would take place if the perpetrators knew that other workers were armed. I am thinking fewer.
Another part of this story that bothers me is that it says the gun was found behind the workers seat in his car, why were they searching his car in the first place?
And if the company bans me from having a lawfully carried gun in my vehicle, does that mean they are responsible for my safety to and from work? Are they saying I do not have the right to protect myself during my drive to and from work? If I worked at a company with such a policy, and something happened to me where I was injured in any way where having a gun would have prevented it, I would be suing that company to the nth degree.
BOOTSTICK wrote:
Some employers have the right to fire you depending upon your behavior off the job, such as smoking and driving habits.
You have every right to be armed to and from work. As soon as you pass onto private property your right to be armed ends, so have a friend/ spouse drive you to work and pass the weapon off to him/her before entering the company property.
No. Just your blankey and a nice muffin.
I demand the right to work my job in jail.
And to have beers.
And dancing girls.
Dear jonestown,
"It violates the public policy of the US to infringe on our RKBA's."
Not according to federal law.
sitetest
Dear jimthewiz,
"Private property rights do not relieve the owner of PC (probable cause) before searching."
If the employer is a private employer, and the employee signs an agreement to submit to random searches, the employer may search without probably cause.
Probably cause is required of the government in order to obtain a search warrant. It doesn't really enter into relations between individuals.
sitetest
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.