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."
How about firing you for having cigarettes in your car?
The inside of my VEHICLE is MY private property. Period. Get that through your thickened skull.
By the way, the blatant dishonesty of your response was astounding.
The fact that you, a person who constantly advocates nuking Mecca, banning Islam in America, and killing its adherents worldwide because you don't consider Islam a religion at all, turned around and drew moral equivalency between the Q'uran to the Bible in order to hide your true feelings when answering this question, was truly nauseating.
You don't get it do you?
They don't have to give you a reason why they fired you at all.
I would submit that an employer can set any rules they like (so long as they don't discriminate based on gender/race/religion, violate laws, etc.), and fire you if you fail to meet the rules. Cigarette smoking included.
Depends on the state. Some states true others not true. On the other hand they can't legally fire you for being black or hispanic or for being female. So there are conditions where government regulation trumps employers powers.
Then you should have no objection to getting to the law changed to add firearms ownership/possession to the gender/race etc.
Incorrect. The Preamble clearly states that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Two of three of those inalienable rights are denied without the simple ability to defend yourself.
Additionally, all life forms have the common sense to defend themselves. It is a universal trait among the living. It has been, and will be in perpetuity, a Natural Law.
I'm very surprised to see you write that sentence.
It's a good thing we "gun loonys" have defended "ridiculous ideas" or BOOTSTICK would be left to defending himself with a stick.
That he carries in his boot.
Unless, of course, Luis Gonzales declared even that self-defense to be unconstitutional.
You know what? I never really got too involved in this issue.
But now I am going to get really involved in pushing this to the forefront. I will campaign stridently and with great vigor to force all employers to accept concealed weapons on their property. I will be writing letters to the editor, getting on radio shows, and calling call-in TV programs. I will be a vocal and noticable voice for the "lunatic gun slingers". I will never stop.
Mostly, I'll be doing it just to personally annoy you.
A new cause to get behind! Additionally, I will push for pistols in vending machines that are placed in airports and grade-schools.
What about the right to be free from unreasonable search? Even if my car is parked on the company's lot, the car remains MY private property, and as such, is not subject to search and/or seizure without probable cause. It isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to make it.
Where exactly did I say that Laz?
How does my (correctly) stating that self defense is not a Constitutional right equate to me saying that self-defense is unconstitutional?
I'm truly surprised at where you're going here.
I'm even more surprised at the fact that you can't tell the Constitution apart from the Declaration of Independence, and how they relate to our laws.
Hey Boss, can I have next week off?
(lock and load sound)
:D
The man who owns the company that I work for has banned all cigarette smoking on his property, if you want to have a smoke during your breaks, you have to physically leave the grounds.
Stated company policy is that cigarette smoking anywhere on the property can get you fired.
When faced with the logical response that employees can drive to work, park off premises, and drive home with weapons in their cars without being bothered by their employer, he claims that employees are "forced" or "required" to park on the employer's property...thus far, he's refused to provide one shred of evidence that Weyerhauser required their employers to park on the company parking lot, or that any company requires anyone to not only drive themselves to work, or park on their parking lot.
It's a good thing we "gun loonys" have defended "ridiculous ideas" or BOOTSTICK would be left to defending himself with a stick.
That he carries in his boot.
Unless, of course, Luis Gonzales declared even that self-defense to be unconstitutional.
469 Lazamataz
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.