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."
Note how similar the arguments of the gun-grabbing Brits sound to the statist bootlickers on the other thread.
Your mama is a statist dweeb.
Good point. Based on 17 murders a week, it doesn't look like the workplace anti-self defense (gun) policies are working. Removing these policies would lower that rate significantly. But just like liberals everywhere they think that if something creates a bad outcome then more of the same will improve the outcome. These people have an agenda to get rid of guns, not just in the workplace but in all of society.
Sure, and I'll bust you out of jail, too. But there's a price. What does your daughter look like?
The only saying that can top that one is "Did your parents have any children that lived."
Wrong. It's an at will state, meaning you can fire someone for any reason whatsoever. The only way you can run afoul would be to get in trouble with the feds via the equal opportunity route, and last time I checked that was limited to a select few criteria such as race.
Who gave the corporation the right to look in the vehicles. Obviously this fellow's was searched to find the gun.
So when protecting *real* property Rights, you demand a price, but when protecting the claims of some anti-gun korporate entity on the internet, you 'work for free'?
Nice to know where your priorities lie.
BTW, I hope you enjoy your police state, run by a "private corporation".
The Nazi HR department there brought in gun/drug sniffing dogs to the parking lot.
They probably got some federal grant or favorable tax treatment for doing so, since in a "real free market", a company that wasted time and money on a Soviet-style witch hunt would quickly go out of business.
Doesn't matter. Private property is private property. You have no inherent right to park this employer's parking lot. The owner is entitled to make his/her own rules, and it doesn't matter of he/she was a former bureacrat or not.
The Second Amendment means that the government won't infringe on your rights. It doesn't refer to private property and it's your choice whether to go on to the property and abide by the owner's rules or stay off. That seems simple to me.
In fact, I don't see this as a 2nd Amendment issue at all, but as a private property issue.
The fellow's vehicle is his private property...how come it was searched? It does not become the property of the corporation just because it's parked on their property. No more than my vehicle does when parked at Wal-mart.
What if your guest kept his gun in his car? Are you going to go check it to see if there is a gun in it?
The story says the no gun policy was a NEW one and that he did NOT know about it.
The issue is not 2nd ammendment rights but property rights
Isn't your own car considered your private property? Most states ALLOW a law-abiding citizen to have a gun in their home, place of work, and VEHICLE (even without a concealed carry permit), because this is considered having a gun on/in your own private property.
There have also been MANY instances of a teacher, administrator, employee running out to a parking lot to retrieve a firearm to stop an assault by an armed criminal/crazed attacker (the law school in Virginia, a few years back, is one example).
Employers should realize that not only is an armed society, a polite society - but so is an armed workplace, a polite workplace. Employers should also realize that criminals and crazies will ALWAYS break the law and/or company policies to take a gun ANYWHERE they want. Only armed law-abiding employees with ready access to firearms can stop these types of people.
LIFE or DEATH issues, particularly regarding an individual's God-given right to self-defense, and the means to effect such a defense, should trump an employers ability to dictate what you can or can not have in your pivately owned vehicle in the PARKING LOT.
I also think the rules, regulations, and laws that say no one can have a firearm within 1000 feet of a school, or take a firearm onto a federal facility or have one in a ntional park, etc., among other places now restricted - are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and assinine. We need to go on the attck and get all of these anti-gun laws/rules/regs changed.
If you are anti-gun, yes you will.
Put emotion aside and think this through. You can't use the 2nd Amendment to destroy private property rights.
I assume you are referring to "right to work" states?
The pro-korporate HR and lawyer types have done a great job in convincing people that "right to work" equates to "we can fire you at any time for any reason".
This is simply wrong, and an attempt to 1) scare employees into compliance, and 2) reduce the number of lawsuits against them.
All "right to work" says is that companies can't fire you for not paying fees to the union. And that companies CAN NOT include union security clauses in their collective bargaining agreements.
"Right to work" is, in a fact, a restriction on what companies can do on their "private property", yet some folks here have contorted into something totally different.
You also cannot use private property rights to destroy the right to keep and bear arms. Both of these are fundamental rights and must both be recognized.
Tell me if I have the right to do so. If yes, then there's nothing more to be said. It's my right. If not, then show me the legal or moral basis for you argument. Tell me why I couldn't do so. What are the rational bases for either argument?
Make the case.
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.
The law was passed, it is Constitutional, and yet a judge puts a restraining order preventing it from taking effect???? Under what authority can a judge do that?
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.