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."
So, what's the difference between you and a criminal?
I am bound by the Oath of Citizenship, elected public officials are bound by the Oath of Office, Armed Forces personnel are bound by the Oath of Induction, but an every day citizen takes no oath, and as such isn't bound by anything other than their patriotism, and as such, defending the Constitution becomes a voluntary action.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of The United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
No oath to defend the Constitution there.
It is the duty of every citizen to defend this Nation, but no one is BOUND who has not taken an oath binding him.
The fact that you and I would feel obligated to defend the Nation and the Constitution, does not mean that another person should be bound to do the same.
--- whenever I stay overnight in DC, I always have my firearm with me. No exceptions.
One day I parked at the Reagan Trade Bldg and the car was searched by the Metro or Federal police including popping the trunk and using an electronic sniffer. It was right on top of the bags in the trunk and they never found it.
412 Badray
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had said anything about feeling secure. I, too, was just reporting what occurred. I have little faith in our 'protectors' even if their intentions were good or they had an obligation to protect us.
Thanks for the warning. I am aware of the potential consequences but will likely continue to choose to do so. It's better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6 (or in my case, 12).
Typically, I do avoid federal facilities. I just couldn't find a parking spot on the street that day (a Saturday.)
And ,if gov't contracts simply require (which I think IS the case) any company doing business with any gov't agency to maintain a "safe " and drug-free workplace ,which includes the absolute banning of weapons; then the people of these United States are quite effectively disarmed. There simply is not enough parking away from most persons places of employment nor do most parking garages fail to post "weapon notices".
The local libraries and banks ,etc in Ohio posted "no weapon" signs AFTER the passage of concealed carry laws ;this makes it appear they were never afraid of the criminals who might be intent on robbery and worse, but that the property owners fear the LICENSED,FINGERPRINTED, armed citizen. Treating one's car or truck as a mobile domicile pertaining to rights strikes me a very reasonable.As does the proposition that if you prevent me from caring for my own needs then you should be obligated to meet those needs. The fact that courts have held the police have no obligation to protect any particular person while at the same time preventing that person from protecting himself is a travesty of justice. I note that there is often a yawning chasm between justice and legality.
I know. Sometimes, I just can't let things go without comment. Someone might actually believe him if he isn't challenged.
BTTT
Re-read what you wrote:
"Every right isn't a Constitutional right.
You have a right to receive a bill for services rendered, but that isn't in the Constitution.
Constitutional rights, which is what I was discussing, are rights listed (enumerated) in the Constitution.
Who's the ass?"
The answer: You are.
That is the reason that the Bill of Rights was opposed -- so that people and the government wouldn't think that our rights were only the ones that were listed. Read all first ten Amendments to get a better understanding of rights.
What in the world does 'a bill for services rendered' have to do with rights? It's an obligation for a private transaction.
Like you, Luis, the law is sometimes an ass. The difference between me and the criminal is that my actions harm no one, take from no one, defraud no one.
There are plenty of instances where I ignore the law, but their are no victims in my wake.
I am not sure precisely what would have happened, but I am sure that it would have been interesting, to say the least.
I'll ping you if I ever get caught with it. ;-)
Dear Badray,
"I am not sure precisely what would have happened, but I am sure that it would have been interesting, to say the least."
If you don't have a permit to carry the weapon in DC (and these are very rare in DC), if you're caught in DC, off federal turf, you'll be prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm. It's likely that you won't do time, but it's unlikely that they'll give you a PBJ, either. Bottom line, you'll have a felony conviction to drag around with you.
If you're caught on federal turf, all bets are off.
A lot of these folks have memories of the police officers killed by the crazy back in '98 at the Capitol. A lot of these folks have memories of the anthrax deaths at the DC-area post offices. A lot of these folks remember all the folks who had to take Cipro at the Capitol (including some of my own staff) due to anthrax exposure. A lot of these folks knew folks at the Pentagon, or were evacuated from the Capitol. A lot of these folks knew folks who were killed by the snipers.
A lot of us remember a day when we could walk up to the buildings of our federal government without being searched, without passing by jersey barriers, without having to have special permission to enter.
We remember when key parts of Washington were not ringed with troops who stop every vehicle and search. We remember when we marveled that in spite of all the trouble in the world, our capital was an open city. We remember another time.
Folks who carry firearms into federal buildings are, in the eyes of federal law enforcement, terrorists.
Fair or not, you would likely be tried under post-9/11 statutes.
"I'll ping you if I ever get caught with it. ;-)"
I'm not sure that you'd ever be given the opportunity.
sitetest
I'm curious with all this talk of property rights... How many of you would argue that the business has the right to say that gays can't enter the private property because it is, in fact, private. After all, the homosexual doesn't have a "right to that job", does he? He can go find another job if he doesn't like the conditions, right? Absolutely not! He's going to sue the company and win. Someone please tell me if this is faulty logic.
-GDD
Dear God defeats Darwin,
"He's going to sue the company and win."
Depends on where he lives.
It isn't against federal law to discriminate against someone because he is homosexual.
But it is a violation of law here in Maryland.
Different states and localities treat this circumstance differently.
But if you fire someone because he's homosexual, it isn't a violation of his constitutional rights, even if it is a violation of local law.
sitetest
The poster claims that everyone is BOUND to protect the Constitution...not true.
At post 218 I wrote:
All natural born citizens are bound to support and defend the Constitution regardless of oaths.
We are free to renounce our citizenship if we decline to do so, just as are naturalized citizens.
Regardless of citizenship status, all people in the USA must obey the Constitution.
-- In the past, those who have refused to defend the USA have even been interned for a wars duration.
218 jones
-- Typically, you made no reply..
I am bound by the Oath of Citizenship, elected public officials are bound by the Oath of Office, Armed Forces personnel are bound by the Oath of Induction, but an every day citizen takes no oath, and as such isn't bound by anything other than their patriotism, and as such, defending the Constitution becomes a voluntary action.
Incredible theory. Citizens of the USA, along with all other visitors & residents, must abide by our Constitution & its rule of law.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of The United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
No oath to defend the Constitution there.
"I pledge alligence" -- "to the Republic" -- Close enough to an oath for me..
It is the duty of every citizen to defend this Nation, but no one is BOUND who has not taken an oath binding him.
Spoonerism, straight from 1869..
The fact that you and I would feel obligated to defend the Nation and the Constitution, does not mean that another person should be bound to do the same.
Suit yourself.
How does an employee exercising his Second Amendment rights harm the private property rights of the business? The employees aren't trying to mount an armed coup on the business.
Let's frame it the way I did with the bible, same same as the koran or any other book protected under the 1st Amd:
The company has a parking lot also open to the public for customers and visitors. It bans bibles (or korans) in a policy handed down only a few months ago. It employs book sniffing dogs to ferret them out, using the dogs to indicate which cars to search. The company fires an employee of 19 years for having a bible (or koran) on the company parking lot (which is also open to the general public.)
LG, you side with the company's right to ban the bible (or koran) under these asinine fascist terms.
I don't.
Roger that.
Thanks a lot. I didn't know it was completely a local thing. I'm glad to hear that it is. Thanks for the wisdom.
-GDD
Gee by your logic they should pass out guns to all who enter prison, this would stop prison violence in it's place!...Stick to the sewing threads, and "spice rack" discussions...more your speed.
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.