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."
All the company has to show is that it held mandatory meetings outlining the new policies, sent memos to all its employees etc. They don't have to show that a particular employee had actual knowledge of the new rules, they only need to show that they took reasonable steps to inform their employees of such rules.
If you accept a job with the understanding that the employer retains the right to conduct a cavity search, then you are subject to cavity searches and may be fired if you refuse one.
The employer can't enforce a cavity search, and will be legally and financially liable for firing you if you refuse to allow them to conduct a cavity search, if you were never informed of the cavity search policy.
Is signed an agreement to submit to an employer-administered drug test at any time of their choosing. That's not much different than a BCS, IMO.
Handguns are basically illegal in DC. If you get caught, you're looking at a felony and mandatory jail time. Up to 5 years, IIRC.
And let's not even talk about what can happen to you if you get caught with a firearm on Federal property.
Actually, according to you, life is cruel, then we get the legislature to screw others out of their rights in our behalf.
Your opinion?
Yes. Mandatory jail time of up to 5 years if you don't have a DC or Federal permit.
It is a crime to possess kiddie porn and to commit murders. The drugs are another topic altogether. It'd still require your voluntary co-operation or a search warrent to search the car though. Guns are still a LEGAL item to own, at least until you gun banners get your illegal laws passed.
Another false dichotomy. Is this all you've got left?
I would agree. Clearly the legislature is forcing the employer to assume liability for a potential incident without making any other provisions to absolve them of that liability. I have no doubt that potential liability is what's driving Weyerhauser's actions anyway; eliminate that and the company probably drops the policy.
Contract law seems to be another avenue, but if this law expressly forbid such clauses in an employment agreement perhaps that point is moot.
No. Your employer has no legal duty to help keep you safe on the way to/from work. Otherwise, people who work in bad neighborhoods would be suing their employers all the time.
I get the property rights angle, but I'm not sure what you mean by liability.
Most large companies are required to provide employee parking
jones
The agreement I signed says no firearms in their buildings and no CCW. I had them type out and enter into my contract a clause laying full responsibility for my safety on them for such situations where a firearm would be a reasonable deterrent for. Ie; a co-worker on a rampage. They hemmed an hawed, but signed it.
None of which applies to the above article though. While Weyerhauser may have changed their policy, there is no mention of the guy in question actually agreeing to the "No Firearms in your cars policy". He even volunteered to allow them to search his vehicle after their dogs "hit" on his truck. He felt he had nothing to hide, including his legally owned firearms.
It's illegal to violate the right of a property owner to set conditions on access and use of their property, but you seem to think that it is OK to violate that legality, why would a few more violations mean anything to you?
jonestown:
Is it 'illegal' to drive into DC with a handgun in your trunk?
Making more crap up out of whole cloth...why do you refuse to substantiate a single one of your claims?
Simple answer: you can't because they are lies.
That may or may not be true, depending on the jurisdiction. In urban areas few, if any, employees get parking spots from the company. My downtown DC employer provides no parking for its 600+ employees. Buildings are required to provide x number of parking spots, based on zoning laws. However, if a company is leasing space in a building, it is only entitled to however many parking spots it is able to get when negotiating the lease.
Again, it all comes down to zoning laws. However, I have never seen a requirement that an employer provide parking for its employees, only that a building have x number of parking spots available, in accordance with local zoning laws. An employer can require its employees to take public transit, car pool or park at pay parking lots in the vicinity.
They have every right to dictate and change policies for their company at will.
No. But the courts seem to disagree. I'm not a Con. Law expert, but DC seems to have different Constitutional rules applied to it, to a certain extent.
No, I don't trust them to provide for my protection. That said, I've weighed the alternatives and decided I'll be putting my family at worse risk if I forgo my current job than if I'm unarmed at work. Consequently, I've accepted my employer's terms in exchange for my job.
The agreement I signed says no firearms in their buildings and no CCW. I had them type out and enter into my contract a clause laying full responsibility for my safety on them for such situations where a firearm would be a reasonable deterrent for. Ie; a co-worker on a rampage. They hemmed an hawed, but signed it.
I think that's great. Nice work of getting them to agree. While I don't know how large your employer is, I suspect many large companies would not insert such a provision in the agreement.
None of which applies to the above article though. While Weyerhauser may have changed their policy, there is no mention of the guy in question actually agreeing to the "No Firearms in your cars policy". He even volunteered to allow them to search his vehicle after their dogs "hit" on his truck. He felt he had nothing to hide, including his legally owned firearms.
I would argue that distribution of the new policy coupled with his continued use of the company parking lot is tacit agreement.
I understand where you're going with allowing the search, but if one knows a search is inevitable the calculation is to allow it and try to persuade the authority that your cooperation should be worth something.
Admittedly, I don't know the circumstances above/beyond what I've read here, so this is all conjecture. I guess the real story will come out soon enough.
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.