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."
Why is physical assault, or similar excluded?
Not only lawyers, but public officials. The courts have shut them down. The OK legislature shut these folks down also and their back in court.
" I have no doubt a workplace shooting would result in a lawsuit against the employer for failing to provide a safe work environment."
A father that ran over his 2 year old daughter is suing Nissan, because they didn't mount a video camera on the back bumper to prevent him from doing so. If the employer has money to spend to screw his employees, he's got it to defend against goofball thieves. This is gun grabbing and they know it.
It's not. Also, consider the "consetual" payment of extortion money in protection rackets. Intimidation for loss of right is the key. In neither of these cases is the contract consentual; it is obtained by intimidation. In both cases the intimidation involves a loss of right that not welcomed at all by one of the parties and would never be freely given in other circumstances.
If I get SHOT when my willingness to carry and use a gun in defense could have prevented it, then I have actionable cause there as well. Makes more sense to err on the side of caution and have more safely armed employees than to have a bunch of sitting ducks.
On someone else's property, they do. By the way, when can I come exercise my First Amendment rights in your front yard? I notice you conveniently dropped that subject.
My yard is not a company parking lot. You haven't been invited to park your private property on it, or to make a speech.
Contrary to your false assertion that I made a "false assertion" upthread: --- private companies are required to obey Constitutional law in order to conduct business in the US.
Yet countless other companies have similar policies in effect - and are continuing to do business in the US. If your assertion was fact, the OK legislature would've simply shut down Weyerhauser instead of passing this law, no?
No. - They passed a law to prevent the infringement.
Thounsands of companies are proving you wrong everday. The fact that you refuse to admit it, doesn't change the truth of my statement.
The fact that thousands of companies, and Fed/State/local governments are violating the US Constitution everyday does not prove you right.
The fact that you refuse to admit it, doesn't change the truth of the issue. Our RKBA's is being violated, and you are defending companies that are doing it.
There isn't; however, the mouth-breathing rhetoric from the pro-gun-rights side scares the living daylights out of the average HR manager who doesn't have much of an idea about what guns are like except from TV and the movies.
The difference being, of course, that you do not have the legal right to burn down someone else's shop while you do have the legal right to fire your employees for violating your rules.
Every job limits your constitutional rights. I have the right to free movement, but if I take a week-long trip to Florida without my employer's permission, I'll get fired. I have the legal right to view pornogrpahy, but my employer can fire me for bringing porn onto his premises.
The rules are limited to the workplace, or they are not valid. In this case the extension of demand outside the sphere of the workplace and the employer's right IS extortion.
So, the Catholic Church couldn't fire a priest who was violating his vows of celibacy, so long as he only had sex outside of Church? The Republican party couldn't fire an employee for volunteering for John Kerry in his free time? An anti-abortion group couldn't fire one of their employees for performing abortions in their spare time? Your employer couldn't fire you for making negative statements about his business in your free time?
Sure, but can the employer violate the employee's rights to get this information? For example via wiretaps, burglaries (searches), or forced invasions of the employee's private property or person? I have no trouble with an employer firing someone if they find out they violate a rule by recklessly displaying arms or leaving them about. But concealed holster carry, or locked carry in a personal vehicle doesn't rise to the employer's attention unless the employer proactively asserts authority that isn't germain to the tacit employment contract. I'm not so sure that an employment contract is valid just because an employee agrees to give up his rights. In a similar vein, most accident release forms as contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I couldn't agree more.
Too bad. You are obligated to uphold the Constitution, which allows me to exercise my rights to free speech. I get to dictate the terms of my access to your property - not you.
Or at least, that's what you'd have us believe. The fact that you think your own property is to be subject to different terms than other property exposes your hypocrisy.
The fact that thousands of companies, and Fed/State/local governments are violating the US Constitution everyday does not prove you right.
You stated upthread that adherence to the Constitution is a requirement for doing business in the US. Now you claim that thousands of companies are violating the Constitution yet are still in business. Can't keep your story straight, huh?
Dear spunkets,
"Why is physical assault, or similar excluded?"
Except in self-defense, to commit physical assault against another is a criminal offense. Employment law, as I understand it, does not require someone to submit to crimes as a condition of employment. Even employment at-will doesn't permit terminating an employee for failing to submit to a crime. As well, even employment at-will doesn't permit terminating an employee for refusing to participate in a crime.
These are some of the "public policy" exceptions in "at-will" employment law. If you read through my posts in this thread, you'll find that I've previously posted about this.
sitetest
"Generally speaking, your employer can demand that you consent to a search on the spot, even if no previous rule existed to that effect. If you refuse, he can fire you."
Wrong, 18USC241 forbids it. He can not extort someone to surrender their rights. He is limited to firing them w/o cause, or just make some bogus statement.
Are employers not allowed to fire for insubordination anymore?
I've owned my own businesses since 1985. In that time, I've rented offices in about eight different places in different jurisdictions throughout the Washington region. No one, not the builder, not the employer is "required" to provide any parking spaces for any specific employees.
Our local 7/11 burned down. -- To rebuild they were required to provide 2 new offstreet parking spaces for employees.
The government does not require me by law to provide parking for my employees.
Some don't, most do.
In fact, I could forbid employees from parking in the lot if I wished to save the spots for customers. We don't have customers come to our site, but if we did, I could do so.
And if the local government wanted you to provide employee parking and mandate that it be used, they could make that a condition for renewing your business license.
No employer, no building owner in the Washington region is required to provide parking specifically for employees. In fact, just the opposite is true in this region. Several local jurisdictions have programs to discourage individual commuters, and to encourage mass-transit and car-pooling. To that effect, zoning in certain places is changing to RESTRICT the number of parking places provided by the builders of buildings. Even further, even if an employer were obligated to provide parking for employees, that doesn't mean that the employee must use that parking. The employee could take mass transit, could be driven by a spouse who dropped him or her off at the gate.
Yep, that's the idea. Control every aspect of an individuals life, and in effect, take away as many individual rights & freedoms as possible.
And of course, because of the 13th Amendment banning slavery, it is illegal for the employer to force the employee to work for his company, thus the employee is always free to refrain from working for the employer at all. Thus, at no time is any private citizen ever forced to park their vehicle on the property of the employer. Ever.
Yet many are being 'coerced', as in Oklahoma, into abandoning their RKBA's. Why you defend this coercion is beyond comprehension.
As a result, entry onto the employer's property is entirely voluntary, and that being the case, the employer may rightfully impose whatever rules or restrictions he may like, excepting submission to physical assault or similar.
One of our most basic rights is being 'assaulted', and you claim the employer is 'rightful'. Go figure.
The "hire at will" rule doesn't apply once the motivation involved becomes a clear attempt to extort rights. An example: You don't have to pay employees to vote, but if you make it clear they will be fired if they do, it's a crime.
It's been made a criminal offense by the legislature, because it's a violation of rights. The legislature does not consider sport fights assault(battery), because that's not a violation of rights. It can be simply an employment contract. The key is whether, or not the demand is a rights violation, or legitimate employment matter. The OK legislature saw the vehicle owner's rights being violated as I do.
So since we don't like the employer's free choice, let's get government involved, eh? Some so-called conservatives are all-too-happy to grow government intervention so long as they're controlling the stick...
The employers limits have to refer to the workplace, or other business considerations. The employer can't demand that you decorate the interior of your car, or house to his liking. When it's a minority's rights being violated, it's the govm'ts job to correct and/or sanction the injustice. MAjorities don't have that problem, because they have sufficient bargaining power.
All workplace, or business related.
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.