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."
Modernman wrote:
I have never seen a requirement that an employer provide parking for its employees ----
My firearms stay in my car. If I so much as stick one out the window while parked in their parking lot I have violated their property Rights. But not until.
Get it? Or does your hatred of firearms blind you to so simple a fact?
Yes... they do. I'm not arguing that at all. My company not only sends out a copy of all policy changes, but solicits feedback. It also requires that major policy changes, like those regarding firearms, be SIGNED by the employee and added to your file.
Liability insofar as the Oklahoma legislature is removing Weyerhauser's right to set whatever policy they deem the most appropriate in order to protect their employees from work place gun related violence.
The legislature has effectively voided their ability to make a choice, but if a work place related shooting takes place, Weyerhauser is still financially, legally, and perhaps even criminally accountable to the victims of the shooting for a shooting that could arguably have been avoided.
In other words, if I'm not allowed BY LAW to do whatever I believe I need to do in order to stop you from jumping off the roof of my house and into my pool, why should I be liable for your injuries if you do it and get hurt?
I hate guns?
I OWN guns!
I think we've got around 20,000 in the US, Germany, and China. I brokered the deal based off of similar policies with other employers in the area.
Major policy changes here require a signed copy be kept with the employees record. This negates the "but I didn't know" factor. Hopefully, we'll get more details on this. Sounds like a try and korporate kommunism though...
Why is that?
I would argue that distribution of the new policy coupled with his continued use of the company parking lot is tacit agreement
nittany
jonestown:
"Most large employers are required to provide parking spots to their employees as a condition of doing business."
Agreed.
I think we've got around 20,000 in the US, Germany, and China. I brokered the deal based off of similar policies with other employers in the area.
I'm impressed. It's surprising that a company so large allows tailored policy agreements with their employees. My company is a bit bigger (50-60K), and they'd never go for something like that.
Hopefully, we'll get more details on this. Sounds like a try and korporate kommunism though...
I agree. I hate what the company's trying to do here as well.
I'm not arguing for it at all; it's a stupid and counterproductive policy. But for better or worse, the freedoms we enjoy allow all sorts of stupidity.
How does this type of 'policy' serve the Constitution?
It doesn't. It serves the property owner's whim, which is all that's required. Contrary to your false assertion upthread, private companies are not required to serve the Constitution in order to conduct commerce in the US.
Then show me the world as it is...if companies are required by law to provide parking FOR THEIR EMPOYEES, then it should be rather easy to show me the law that says that.
Thus far, you have refused to.
I am?
Then you are seeing pink, and that's YOUR problem.
I believe that the company's property rights prevail in this issue.
So the companies property Rights not only supercede MY property Rights, but also my Second Amendment Rights? What other Rights of mine can a company take away without due process?
"Where is the safety in banning guns in the workplace?
How many gun related crimes are committed by employees in police stations, gun shops and other places of employment where practically every employee is armed?"
Good point. I don't think very many start shooting in police stations or the like because they know what they are up against and choose instead to mess with places where they can do their dirty work and then leave unharmed.
Why argue for a "No Firearms in your cars policy"?
How does this type of 'policy' serve the Constitution?
jones
"You can make searching his car be a condition of his parking on your driveway. He can always refuse and park elsewhere, of course."
If someone told me that I would leave, my car is my property. Period.
One of the reasons the Constituiton was created was to have a fed gov protect the rights of market players involved in interstate commerce. That was to maintain fairness in the marketplace. The 14th amend. extended their jurisdiction to State and local govm'ts and to any parties violating fed recognized rights.
In this case the concerns of the employer are not the workplace and workplace safety, because the guns are locked in the car, out of the sphere of the workplace, and the employer(s) deliberately linked them with, employee mental stability and illegal drugs. The employers intend to infringe on the right of their employees to maintain and keep private their property contained within their vehicles. The right of the employer to determine what is in the parking lot ends at the vehicles body.
The employee is the property owner being deprived of his property, privacy and liberty, by the employer's slander and libel campaign and attempt to extend his property boundary into the employees property right.
This law was written by our local congressman because of a couple of incidences here in S.E. Oklahoma. The Weyerhauser company did a surprise drug check on the employees vehicles in the parking lot (on company property). The dog hit on a pickup truck. When it was searched, they did not find drugs, they did find wintergreen chewing tobacco which the dog was convinced was drugs. However, they also found an unloaded rifle behind the seat. The employee was fired. Then, a couple of weeks later, they did a surprise search of every vehicle on the lot. Several of them had guns in them. All of the employees with guns in their vehicles were fired. Most of them had been with the company SEVERAL years. They anounced that they would conduct random searched daily. All hell broke loose & the employees started parking along side the highway in the bar ditch (off company property) in protest. The law, as written, would allow employees fired for having a gun in their vehicle to sue to get their job back & back pay. James
Although it's just an anonymous poster, it sounds as though employees are exercising the right to park off-property.
It is obvious that in most localities companies are required by law to provide parking "FOR THEIR EMPOYEES" as a condition of doing business.
I have no obligation to 'show you' the obvious.
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.