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."
Er... 349 was mine. Did you perchance mean 338?
I would quit. Or, I would simply ignore the rule. Of course, I recognize that my employer would be well within his rights to fire me if he found out about the firearms I keep in my home.
It's not even really an issue of private property rights- it's an issue of what agreement he and I have reached when it comes to the terms of my employment.
Pretty vague law, but sure. We're slowly drifting in the direction of an employer only being able to fire employees for cause. Creeping socialism does that.
Of course, you seem to assume that if I was an employer, I would pass rules like this.
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,
No. It is a fact.
if you believe that an employer violates the Constitution by prohibiting its employees from having firearms on company property -
I don't "believe" that. A company can regulate the carrying of arms by its employees on the jobsite, certainly.
An employer violates the Constitution by in effect prohibiting its employees from having firearms while driving to and from work. Thus, employees who park on company property must be allowed to lock weapons in their cars.
Plenty of companies have implemented just such prohibitions, despite protests. -- That's why the Oklahoma state legislature passed a law to prevent companies from doing just that - because the action of the companies is not Constitutional.
If the companies actions were Constitutional, no law would be required to forbid the practice.
Your RKBA is not infringed in an employment situation since the relationship is completely consensual. Your employer cannot force you to give up your RKBA- all he can do is fire you. Even if it is true that the 2nd Amendment applies to private parties (it doesn't, of course), this isn't an issue of gun rights, it's an issue of whether or not you have a "right" to a job if you violate your employer's rules.
Thus, a contract that infringes on that right is forbidden.
If that was the case, the OK legislature would not have to pass a law to allow employees to carry guns onto private property- the employees could simply seek redress in the Federal courts.
Yes, thanks!! I did mean 338. Not 349. I think I need not go to bed and get some rest.
Dead Corpse wrote:
Hehhe... now you want them to listen to logic? Good luck with that. They've been immune so far.
Dear Modernman,
"We're slowly drifting in the direction of an employer only being able to fire employees for cause. Creeping socialism does that."
In some places more, in some places, not so much.
I was surprised to learn that my own state, Maryland, often thought of as a liberal holiday wonderland, is pretty tolerant of employment at-will. Although we have a few more statutory exceptions than most (no "affinity discimrination" - can't fire folks for being homosexual), the state courts have otherwise given a relatively free interpretation of employment at-will.
I had a professor in a grad school management course tell me that "at-will" was going the way of the dinosaur, but frankly, it seems that the movement away from "at-will" may have peaked.
However, the problem with at-will employment often doesn't come directly from courts or legislatures, but from employers who don't fully understand the impact of the law. For instance, if a company promulgates a formal disciplinary policy, stating that it will fire an employee after so many offenses of thus-and-such rule or policy, that becomes part of the employment contract, and the company may no longer fire "at-will," at least for the stated offenses.
If a general disciplinary policy is established, it may entirely vitiate at-will employment in that organization.
sitetest
Nothing in the rules mentioned here in any way prevented employees from having firearms in their car while driving to and from work. The only place they could not have firearms is on their employer's property. They were free to park elsewhere if this rule was inconvenient for them. Just because you have a Constitutional right to do something does not mean anyone else is required to help you enjoy those rights. You have the right to free speech, but that does not mean I am required to let you borrow my microphone.
If the companies actions were Constitutional, no law would be required to forbid the practice.
Huh? Constitutional actions can be banned by law. I do not violate any provision of the Constitution by threatening death upon somebody else, but the government can still ban such threats.
And, as has been mentioned many times, until you realize that the Constitution does not deal with private actors, all your other arguments are simply wrong.
My wife is an employment lawyer (defenses-side). She says one of the best ways to fire someone is to just fire him and say nothing. Never give a reason, but make sure you have a file on them, just in case.
Dear jonestown,
"Plenty of companies have implemented just such prohibitions, despite protests. -- That's why the Oklahoma state legislature passed a law to prevent companies from doing just that - because the action of the companies is not Constitutional."
If the actions of the companies were unconstitutional, all that would be necessary would be taking the companies to court and having that part of their employment policies invalidated.
The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery.
If a person signs a contract selling himself into slavery, no law written by any legislature is necessary to invalidate the contract. One merely must present oneself before a judge, and ask that the contract be declared invalid. The contract violates the Constitution.
You don't need legislation to prohibit unconstitutional actions. The "legislation" is inherent in the Constitutuion.
"If the companies actions were Constitutional, no law would be required to forbid the practice."
That's backwards. If the company's actions are constitututional, then the ONLY way to forbid their actions is through passing a law. Sex discrimination by a private party isn't unconstitutional. That's why, to make it illegal, it was necessary to pass laws banning it.
The use of positive law to forbid something is required if it isn't inherently forbidden by the Constitution.
There is no constitutional prohibition to my driving at a speed over 55 mph on the Washington Beltway. To make it illegal requires a law passed by a legislature, either federal, state, or local.
There is no constitutional prohibition to a company forbidding folks from having guns in their cars while on company property. To make such a policy illegal requires a law passed by a legislature, either federal, state, or local.
sitetest
Dear Modernman,
I don't disagree with your wife.
That's why I offer very little commentary at all on my own hiring/firing practices. Even in the abstract.
;-)
sitetest
"It's not even really an issue of private property rights- it's an issue of what agreement he and I have reached when it comes to the terms of my employment."
In previous posts you've made clear your position that private property rights trump are the highest form of a right on your private property and now you cede that off to an employer without a fight.
You're letting an employer deprive you of the right to enjoy your property as you see fit and the employer has never even set foot on your land. Yet you'll vehemently protest the mere point that someone else's civil rights do not disappear on your property.
While your own rights on that same property are readily eviscerated at the whim of a hypothetical employer.
Now you put me in the position of defending YOUR rights on your own property and you're the one saying that someone can violate your property rights at whim if you take a job with them.
Your arguments are not consistent.
I would expect to see you wanting to stick your employer on a spit and then roasting his butt over an open fire for proposing that they can dictate what you can and cannot do on your own property on your own time.
Your RKBA is not infringed in an employment situation since the relationship is completely consensual.
An employment contract that infringes on an individuals RKBA's to & from work is against Constitutional 'public policy'.
Your employer cannot force you to give up your RKBA- all he can do is fire you.
Fine example of an employment relationship that is completely consensual.
Even if it is true that the 2nd Amendment applies to private parties (it doesn't, of course),
It does, of course. Everyone residing in the USA must abide by the US Constitution.
this isn't an issue of gun rights, it's an issue of whether or not you have a "right" to a job if you violate your employer's rules.
If that was the case, the OK legislature would not have to pass a law to allow employees to carry guns onto private property- the employees could simply seek redress in the Federal courts.
An employer violates the Constitution by in effect prohibiting its employees from having firearms while driving to and from work. Thus, employees who park on company property must be allowed to lock weapons in their cars.
Plenty of companies have implemented just such prohibitions, despite protests. -- That's why the Oklahoma state legislature passed a law to prevent companies from doing just that - because the action of the companies is not Constitutional.
If the companies actions were Constitutional, no law would be required to forbid the practice.
I haven't ceded any rights to an employer. Like I said, he cannot make me give up my RKBA. All he can do is fire me if I violate his rules. Nobody is required to help you enjoy your rights.
You're letting an employer deprive you of the right to enjoy your property as you see fit and the employer has never even set foot on your land.
If I agree to not exercise my RKBA, I am doing so voluntarily, so the employer is in no way depriving me of those rights. Now, if the employer broke down my door and stole my guns, that is a different issue.....
I would expect to see you wanting to stick your employer on a spit and then roasting his butt over an open fire for proposing that they can dictate what you can and cannot do on your own property on your own time.
He cannot "dictate" what I can and cannot do on my own property on my own time. All he can do is refuse to keep me employed if I break his rules. Other than that, he has no power to make me do anything.
No it is not. Anyway, your point is moot since the rules here do not infringe on an individual's RKBA's to & from work.
Fine example of an employment relationship that is completely consensual.
You can quit at any time, your boss can fire you at any time. How is this not completely consensual.
An employer violates the Constitution by in effect prohibiting its employees from having firearms while driving to and from work
How did the employer here prohibit its employees from having firearms while driving to and from work? I didn't see that in the article.
HEY!
You're that guy that's running for Arafat's old job, aren't you?
Yes he can...can YOU decide who parks on YOUR driveway?
But that strip of rubber that touches his property gives him the right to set the rules on access and use of his property.
And if he says that you can't drive in with a gun in your car, you can't.
By the wauy, if you park a trailer on someone else's property without his permission, wgat are you called?
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.