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."
Dear jimthewiz,
In downtown Washington, DC, if you wish to bring your car onto federal property (in some cases, within a certain radius of federal property), you must be willing to submit your vehicle to a search by federal police.
There are now roadblocks on certain streets manned by helmeted, vested police carrying very nice-looking semi-automatic weapons through which you must pass. They may do little more than look in the windows, have the dogs sniff, and use the mirrors to peer under the vehicle. Or they may have you pop the trunk, open the back, and submit to a fuller search.
sitetest
Where's the common sense in banning guns from locked cars?
Dear LouD,
"What right does a company have to search private vehicles?"
The Fourth Amendment protects you from government action, not private action. A private employer actually has more right to search than the police.
That's not to say that the private employer has an unlimited right to search your person, your possessions, or your car.
However, a private employer could make, as a condition of employment, a rule that required you to submit your car to search at any time, when on company grounds. A governmental employer would have less freedom in making such a rule, although here in Washington, it is now policy that if you bring your vehicle onto government property, you cede to the government permission to thoroughly search your vehicle.
In general, you have the right not to park on company grounds, or not to work for that employer. In general, you don't have the right to prevent your employer from making such a rule a condition of employment.
sitetest
Correct, try to enter a nuclear power plant with a weapon in your vehicle, oh and if one is found , don't expect to be asked to leave the premisis, expect a trip to the pokey with smokey!
A locked car is only locked until a pissed off or unstable employee goes out and unlocks it. Hope this isn't too confusing for you.
Dear jonestown,
"It violates the public policy of the US to infringe on our RKBA's."
Not according to federal law.
sitetest
Where's the common sense in banning guns from locked cars?
262 jones
Exactly. Do I agree to a body-cavity search when I walk into a place of business?
There was a case not too long ago about women being filmed changing clothes at a Hooters. Well, if I give consent to searching my car when I drive into the parking lot, how is that different than a search of my person while I am changing clothes? Where is the line here? I put the line at anything in a locked container.
So could my boss say that I own a pickup and they are gas-guzzlers and so therefore I may not park it there?
You do when you come in MY store.
But then again, I'm a perv.
It's a pleasure to meet you, Sarah.
Correct and you will just have to get used to the idea that your RKBA are not universal, and never will be, as common sense dictates otherwise.
I'm a "loonie" to want to protect myself at work, too??!?!?
By the way, about that "backlash" we "loonies" have insured (sic).... Conceal Carry is now the law in the land in all but four states, and gun control is now viewed -- even by liberal democrats -- as an election-loser.
You may thank us "loonies" for this horrible "backlash", Mr. "responsible" gun-owner.
Dear jonestown,
The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms.
It doesn't give you the right to enter onto another's property. If you do so without permission, and without other exigent reasons, that is generally trespassing. With or without a gun.
If you trespass, the property owner can have you arrested.
A person (legal or individual) may set the terms and conditions for your entry onto his property. As you have no right, generally, to enter onto his property, but certainly have the right to refrain from doing so, you may not generally enter someone's property while violating the terms and conditions set forth by the owner.
The owner of the property may require you to refrain from speaking about certain subjects (or, indeed, may require you to refrain from speaking, generally - you may be thrown out of a movie theater if you inordinately exercise your right to free speech.).
The owner may prevent you from bringing specific publications onto the owner's property (Try handing out flyers for the Church of Satan at a Christian church. If the pastor has you arrested for trespassing, see how sympathetic the judge is to your cry of First Amendment rights.)
The owner of the property may require you to pay for admission. The owner of the property may forbid you from conducting various types of commerce on the property, while permitting others. You may not complain about equal treatment as required by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The owner may even require of you that you submit to a search of your person. When I go to federal or state facilities, I must nearly always submit to metal detection, and further screening, if required. This is also required at airports, whether publicly or privately owned. There are certain private employers in this area that require this for access to certain facilities, now, too.
Because it is not a violation of your rights to create conditions that may cause you to prefer not to enter onto another's property, even if you feel that they temporarily abridge your constitutional rights, it is not generally a violation of law or public policy to do so.
However, once you are on someone else's property, they do not have the right to commit crimes against you. They do not have the right to assault you physically (except in defense of innocent life), whether sexually or non-sexually. They do not have the right to force you to commit felonies. They do not have the right to prevent you from reporting felonies.
These are examples of major "public policy" violations that are exempt from the at-will doctrine of employment.
sitetest
Man.
With 'friends' like you, who needs the V.P.C.???
No I am using every common sense argument to assure Property owners can dictate that armed people not be permitted on their property.
Yes I'm afraid any person who thinks he has a "right" to be armed on my preoperty is indeed a LOONY!!!!!!!!
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.