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."
Yes, but I do not believe I have the right to look through their car first.
Sure. He can tell me I can't park my car there. What he can't do is go snooping INSIDE said car. That part of the whole equation still escapes you doesn't it.... must be vexing for you. Maybe you should go lie down for a while...
A democrat? Your comment has nothing to do with the issue.
Property rights do not trump the right to protect yourself. The business does not protect you while you are in your car travelling to and from work.
A good compromise between the rights of the property owner and the rights of the individual is to require the gun owner to lock his gun in the car.
In any case, if the gun owner agreed not to bring guns into the parking lot as a condition of employment, he should not have brought it to work.
You can make searching his car be a condition of his parking on your driveway. He can always refuse and park elsewhere, of course.
The company is not stopping you from carrying firearms in your car. They're just stopping you from doing so while on their property. Park elsewhere if such a rule is too onerous, or quit. Nobody is required to help you enjoy your rights.
Your are absolutely correct and have demonstated my point. You must be willing to submit. You have the option of not entering.
In the case of the employer in the case, we have no mention of any agreement, but the employer searched without permission.
You are absolutely correct and have demonstated my point. You must be agree to the search. In the case of the employer in the case, we have no mention of any agreement, but the employer searched without permission.
"That Oct. 1, in a surprise search, Weyerhaeuser Co. sent gun-sniffing dogs into the parking lot of its paper mill here. Mr. Bastible and 11 other workers were fired after guns were found in their vehicles. The timber company said the weapons violated a new company policy that extended a longtime workplace gun ban to the parking area. The fired workers said they knew nothing of the new rule.""The Weyerhaeuser paper mill has been the largest employer in town for more than 30 years, providing about 2,500 jobs in the area and contributing more than $55 million annually to the local economy in taxes, payroll and community donations, according to the company. The whole gun flap actually started with an apparent drug overdose at the plant. Plant manager Randy Nebel hired a security company to bring in four dogs to search for drugs and guns in the parking lot. The dogs didn't find any drugs but zeroed in on several vehicles containing firearms."
"The company then ordered the workers to open the suspect cars so that they could be hand-searched. A dozen workers, four Weyerhaeuser employees and eight who worked for subcontractors, were suspended for having rifles, shotguns or handguns. A couple of days later, they were fired as part of Weyerhaeuser and its subcontractors' zero-tolerance policy for major safety violations, the companies say."
"Jimmy "Red" Wyatt, a 45-year-old father of five who worked his way up from the factory floor to supervisor in his 22 years at the mill, says he often carried his rifle to scare off coyotes threatening the cattle he raises in his spare time. A shotgun also found was left over from bird hunting with his sons the day before."
"Mr. Nebel says that firing Mr. Wyatt, a model worker, was difficult. But after clearing the parking lot of guns, "I believe the plant is safer," he said."
"The plant manager said the new gun rule had been in place since January 2002 after reversing a previous policy that had allowed workers to leave their guns locked in their cars. The company says it told workers in writing and during "team meetings" of the new policy. "It was well known this would be dealt with severely," said Mr. Nebel. Mr. Wyatt and the other fired workers say they never were told of the changed rule." -- Source
If the employers can prove that that the policy had been announced, the employees are at fault for their own dismissal...and yes, Weyerhouser acted like gigantic a$$holes firing such long-term employees, but they are within their rights to do so.
Read post #392.
He doesn't see it, he believes that he is entitled to that job, and as such, he can control workplace rules.
The only rights being violated here are the property rights of the owners of Weyerhouser.
The employee maintains his right to have a weapon, and the ownership maintains their property rights, if that employee simply parks off premises...but people like jonestown have no respect for anyone else's rights, and expect the government to "defend" theirs.
It's called hypocrisy.
Since they believe that they are "entitled" to the job, they can dictate the rules of employment.
Dear jimthewiz,
"In the case of the employer in the case, we have no mention of any agreement, but the employer searched without permission."
That appears to be in dispute.
In fact, the employees are suing because they allege they were uninformed about the policy. If they can make out those facts, they may prevail. The company, on the other hand, differs. If the company can make out as fact that these folks knew the policy, knew that all vehicles are subject to search if placed on company property, then the employees will not prevail.
You may wish to look at what is quoted by Luis Gonzalez in post #392.
But we have have been discussing, more generally, whether employers may require those who work for them to agree with these conditions of employment. Certainly, if someone doesn't agree to the conditions of employment, he has the option of declining employment. If someone is employed, and does not wish for his car to be subject to search, even though that's company policy, he can leave his car off company property.
The more general question is whether the company has a right to insist on submission to searches of any vehicle that wish to gain entry to its property, and whether the company may forbid employees from bringing firearms onto company property, even if kept in their cars.
By law, the company may insist on the searches of cars parked on company property, and may forbid firearms in employees' cars parked on company property.
sitetest
I invite responses from anyone who can show me figures where this exceeds one tenth of one percent of all such crimes.
(Check my tagline)
The Oklahoma legislature acted like even bigger a$$holes by duping the people of the State into believing that this "law" would hold up in Court.
The Oklahoma legislature "played" their constituents.
The law will not stand, because property rights supersede the idea that the employee is entitled to a job, a parking spot on someone else's property, and the right to dictate what rules he wishes to disregard in relation to another person's property.
Your opinion on what lawful rules a property owner may set for access or use of his property are meaningless, only the property owner's opinion counts.
I'm sure that you would say that exact thing to me if I decided to act in an inappropriate manner while on your property and argued that the Kerry/Edwards Forever sign I just planted on your property caused no one any harm, and that I was protected by my First Amendment right.
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.