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."
I don't care what the posts say I am commenting on what is legal and isn't and is currently enforced. Ones opinions and personal issues with widgets aside, pro or con.
Not unless the vehicles access to the property is controlled . You can post signs all day long. They have all the validity of stay off the grass unless your commercial property to include the employee parking lot is gated for only those who have been briefed as to company policy, that briefing documented, the employee signed as part of their employement agreement that to carry a weapon or other listed and posted prohibited items in their personal vehicle in a "controlled" area (the company property and all grounds owned by acme inc).......is accomplished and allowed access via an issued employee identification badge or guard force that ensures only those the employer has approved via the above security briefing and employment agreement are allowed in that parking lot.
Your personal property rights trump the employers unless you sign them away via the process described above..... If you sign away those rights during the employment process and violate them..... then yer fired if caught. End of issue
Anything less is shit'n shineola and fluff.........and not legally enforced.
My, but you're a slow learner!
Your choice as a potential employee is to either accept your employer's rules or not. If you don't, you won't be able to work for that person.
Yes, a private property owner can disallow carrying of arms on their property. The inside of my car is MY property. Still can't wrap your warped little brain around that one, can you...
Yes. I can sign away my Rights as a condition of employment. That is the one reason why I am not currently wearing a firearm at my desk. As a counter condition, I stipulated that since they chose to disarm me, that they are thereby responsible for preventing harm to me from such actions as a firearm could reasonably be expected to provide protection from. Such as BOOTLICKER flying off the handle and ignoring all the nicely posted signs and shooting at people.
You disarm a law abiding citizen, you have just taken on the responsibility of keeping them safe. Period.
I know you two don't like guns. But you really need to get over this unreasonable fear of yours. It is clouding your logic.
False.
I have no more responsibility to "keep you safe" if, as a business owner I choose to prohibit you from possessing your precious firearms at my business.
Criminal attack is not a reasonably forseeable incident, nor is possession of a firearm a sufficiently likely guarantor of harm prevention, to make anyone financially liable for your safety.
Really, it's positions like yours which is why the gun-nut stereotype isn't.
"Employers can legally make it a condition of employment that you not own any firearms."
Name the federal, state, or local codicil that allows this. You are saying 'legally' so tell me where this is legal that an employer can dictate what you do or do not own on your own private property.
So here's your argument about employer's "rights" being extended onto YOUR private property - where you have previously maintained that your private property rights trump any other consideration.
And that's wrong, too - you certainly have a strange, odd understanding of the legal system.
In this specific case we're discussing, you have no RKBA which the employer must respect. The government, yes, or it should anyway.
When gun owners learn to play well with others, then we'll see real success in getting these laws relaxed.
It's very strange, though, that gun owners like you demand that everyone else pander to your paranoia which requires you be armed, and by doing so trust that you will be well-behaved. But You! Oh, no, you can't afford to trust anyone - that's why you've gotta be armed all the time!
In contract law, you can agree to anything that is not otherwise forbidden under local, state or federal law. You can agree, as a condition of your employment, not to own firearms. Of course, if such a rule is too onerous, you can always quit. If you can show me a law that would forbid this type of agreement in a given jurisdiction, that's a different matter. Absent such law, however, such a rule by an employer would be perfectly legal.
So here's your argument about employer's "rights" being extended onto YOUR private property
You are only bound by this agreement because you have consented to it as a condition of your employment. Again, if this rule is too onerous you are free to quit and seek employment elsewhere.
Isn't that why our LEO's and military personal carry them? You sound like one of the Brady bunch now. They have used exactly the same argumentation in their frivolous lawsuits.
So how long have you been a shill for the Brady Campaign?
"In contract law, you can agree to anything that is not otherwise forbidden under local, state or federal law."
Okey doke. So when this law passes that forbids employers from needlessly messing with their employees you'll abide by it?
"You are only bound by this agreement because you have consented to it as a condition of your employment. Again, if this rule is too onerous you are free to quit and seek employment elsewhere."
But what about you? How do you feel about an employer violating your private property rights with their pointless edict that has absolutely nothing to do with the work you do for them on their property?
Dear jonestown,
"Your choice as a potential employer is to either accept our US Constitutions rule of law, --- or not.
"If you don't, you won't be able to establish a business in this country."
Well, your statement is counterfactual, if you believe that an employer violates the Constitution by prohibiting its employees from having firearms on company property - even in the employees' cars. Plenty of companies have successfully implemented just such prohibitions.
That's why the Oklahoma state legislature must pass a law to prevent companies from doing just that - because the action of the companies is not unconstitutional.
If it were unconstitutional, no law would be required to forbid the practice.
sitetest
Thousands of established employers are proving your statement wrong every day. You're living in some delusion of your own making, and ignoring evidence to the contrary.
As it is, with my size and training alone I could wreak a fair amount of havok with no weapons at all. And no one here could stop me. However, an armed 8 year old, who was a decent shot, could bring me down in a heart beat.
Guns save lives. Guns in the hands of the law abiding are a deterrent to criminals and loonies alike. That you can't figure out or accept that simple fact says a lot about you.
Modernman wrote:
In contract law, you can agree to anything that is not otherwise forbidden under local, state or federal law.
Hehhe... now you want them to listen to logic? Good luck with that. They've been immune so far.
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.