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."
I equally wonder what all you entitlement advocates reaction would be when financial, legal, and criminal liability for any work place shooting fell on the employees rather than the employer, after the ability of the employer to decide what they considered to be the safest policy at their site was removed by the legislature at the bequest of the people.
If you want to dictate policy to the employer on this, then you should assume all liabilities that may arise as a result of the failure of YOUR policy to protect people at their locale.
The sheer hypocrisy involved here is mind-boggling as neither the gun advocates, nor the legislature will absolve the employer from liability and accountability from incidents that may occur as a result of an individual going to their car, taking out a gun, and shooting a half a dozen co-workers.
How does my (correctly) stating that self defense is not a Constitutional right equate to me saying that self-defense is unconstitutional?
475 Luis Gonzalez
Opinion on #457 and 481?
Excuse me.
You don't understand the difference between rights and Constitutional rights?
You have a right to receive a receipt for services rendered, but that right is not enumerated in the Constitution, so it's not a Constitutional right.
If gun owners become a legally-protected class, then private employers would have to respect that.
I'm not trying to argue that this company's actions were smart or moral; rather, that they were entitled to be stupid based upon property rights and the employment agreement.
How does my (correctly) stating that self defense is not a Constitutional right equate to me saying that self-defense is unconstitutional?
475 Luis Gonzalez
Zoning rules require buildings in certain places to have a certain amount of parking. However, employers are not required to provide those parking spots to their employees.
On the contrary, it's directly on point. You believe all property owners are bound by the Constitution, given that argument you're also bound. So, when can I come to your home and stage my protest?
Or is this imaginary duty only for folks other than yourself? That would be rather hypocritical.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now what we need is more people adherring to it instead of ignoring it out right.
Ole jones will refuse to provide any substantiation to his claims.
Why is this so hard for you people to understand? This private property vs. private property issue should be a no brainer. They don't want guns on their property, fine. They stay in the car where its MY property.
This isn't rocket science here kids...
I agree completely. I think this discussion needs to be about how we weigh property rights and the employment contract against other rights (RKBA, etc.).
Now, I believe Weyerhauser's actions were wrongheaded, stupid and counterproductive. But doesn't every private entity and individual have the right to be as stupid as they like on their own property, and to form contracts/agreements equally stupid? I would submit that these rights must be defended because, in the aggregate view, the private sector will get it right more often than the government will.
If Weyerhauser's foolish policy prevents good employees from working there or forces current employees to quit, they'll soon change the policy. No one is forced to work there.
So can car jack victims sue their employers if the carjacking took place during the trip to or from work?
So then, according to you, the best place to stash crack cocaine, kiddie porn, and the decaying corpses of your last three victims is in your car, and parked on your employer's lot?
At my company, I signed an agreement upon hiring that I would yield to a search of my vehicle in exchange for the right to park it on the company's property. I believe that, by doing so, I've voluntarily ceded any right to claim that car's contents are my private property (at least, with regard to searches by my employer).
My alternative was to seek different transportation, park offsite, or refuse to job.
If Weyerhauser's employees didn't sign a similar agreement (or were not informed of the policy), then I'd agree with your argument.
The employers are not telling employees that they can't carry a weapon in their car to and from work, they're saying that they need to park someplace other than on their property while they are at work if they wish to maintain a weapon in their car.
Sounds like a BCS (body cavity search) isn't too far out of bounds for employers either. Its on their property right?
No one here, or in Oklahoma, has the idea that the employee is entitled to a job, or a parking spot on someone else's property.
The simple facts of the issue are that employers are required by local government to provide employee parking, and the employees seldom have any option but to use it.
Thus, if arms are prohibited in the lot, the employees RKBA's is being infringed.
409 jonestown
Your statement doesn't substantiate your own claim, I want to see a State statute or a State law.
The sheer hypocrisy involved here is mind-boggling as neither the gun advocates, nor the legislature will absolve the employer from liability and accountability from incidents that may occur as a result of an individual going to their car, taking out a gun, and shooting a half a dozen co-workers.
481 Luis Gonzalez
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.