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."
If the company hadn't violated the employees property Rights by trying to exersize dominion over the employees private property, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Dear jonestown,
"Yet many are being 'coerced', as in Oklahoma, into abandoning their RKBA's. Why you defend this coercion is beyond comprehension."
I didn't defend it. I just said that in the absence of a law preventing it, it's legal.
sitetest
And 'round we go...
Actually, this is a great situational example for debate. Some of the best threads on this site are discussing conflicting rights, IMO. Particularly when the rights involved are historically conservative.
The matter involves property boundaries and efforts by the employer to limit the liberties of it's employees off the premises. THeir efforts also contain libel and slanderous remarks against gun owners in general. The govm'ts only justification for existence is to protect rights; it is their duty to do so.
Dear spunkets,
I don't think I've said it is beyond the authority of the legislature to prevent corporations from enforcing a policy like this.
I merely have said that, absent laws preventing them from doing so, that companies are permitted to deny access to their property to folks in vehicles who refuse to submit to a vehicle search. Absent laws preventing them, companies may also make searches of these vehicles on company grounds a condition of employment.
I think the Oklahoma legislature did not think this was a violation of constitutional rights, but rather something that was wrong, period.
Not everything that is wrong is unconstitutional.
If the policy were unconstitutional, folks could have sued over the policy per se, and the Oklahoma legislature could have filed a friend of the court brief in support of their position.
But these folks didn't sue over the policy per se, but rather they sued that they weren't adequately informed of the policy.
If, indeed, the policy were unconstitutional, it wouldn't have required legislation, only judicial action.
sitetest
As for conflicting Rights. I really don't see it that way. The Employer has his property. I, as employee, have mine. As long I as own that vehicle, what is inside it is my property. No matter where that vehicle sits, the contents are mine. No one elses.
If an employer says "No firearms on MY property", then fine. My guns will stay in my car. While on my employers property they will never pass the boundry of my property on to theirs unless such circumstances would save my life or the life of another. In which case, I would feel comfortable suffering any punishment for violating my employers property Rights.
Staying alive is my first priority though.
You can't show me because it isn't true.
If it was true, you would have already linked me to a State site detailing the law.
What is obvious is that you are lying.
The employees have a remedy by suing under 18USC241. If I was the US atty, or AG, I'd bring charges. There's also the conspiracy element.
"But these folks didn't sue over the policy per se, but rather they sued that they weren't adequately informed of the policy."
That's what I saw. Either the plaintiff's atty's are incompetent, or they are working for the same end result as the employers. I've seen this before, where the atty's are being paid by their client and working for the opposition.
Dear spunkets,
I don't believe that a court would buy this particular legal argument.
Please cite for me some case law where this section of the US code was used to go after an employer who required that employees submit to vehicle searches if they wanted to park on company grounds.
I just finished a business and employment law a few weeks ago. The subject of worker safety came up in the course. The case law we examined actually was biased in the other direction. In other words, employers who did NOT implement anti-firearms policies were thought to be more liable in case of folks going "postal" than employers who did implement such policies. The course was taught by a sitting judge.
Whether that is rational, or just, or sensible, or not, it appears to be the prevailing legal environment in the United States right now.
sitetest
Criminals with guns are dangerous. Law abiding people with guns are only dangerous to criminals. Using the Law as justification for a law is a circular argument that should have no place in a free societies legal system.
What's obvious should be evident in the listing of State and Municipal laws available for every State of the Union on line...let's do some research, shall we?
We shall beging with the State in question...from the Oklahoma State official website, located at
http://www.oar.state.ok.us/viewhtml/612_1-11-16.htm
Assigning parking spaces. Where employee parking is available, qualified employees with disabilities will be assigned spaces convenient to an accessible entrance to the assigned worksite. The assignment of parking spaces is based on medical certification of an individual's need for parking accommodations. Spaces will be designated in such a way that they in no way stigmatize the employee with the disability."
WHERE EMPLOYEE PARKING IS AVAILABLE?
DON'T THESE IDIOTS IN THE OKLAHOMA STATE GOVERNMENT KNOW THAT EMPLOYEE PARKING IS REQUIRED BY LAW?
You screwed up, I can prove that you lied simply by going to each and every State website.
You lied, and now it's obvious.
Dear Dead Corpse,
If you want to discuss what the law ought to be, you're welcome to do so.
But what the law IS is related to the prevailing opinion of courts in the United States.
"Using the Law as justification for a law is a circular argument that should have no place in a free societies legal system."
I'm not justifying the law at all. I'm just describing it as it stands.
sitetest
That's right. The Constitution is a blueprint for govm't and contains the Bill of Rights and amends. which address the matters of which rights are inalienable and may not be infringed, unenumerated rights, limits on infringement, equity, due process ect...
Murder is not unconstituitonal, it's a rights violation and thus their are several fed laws that prohibit and sanction particular murders and 18USC24x? that prohibits and sanctions it as a rights violation. 18USC242 was used to prosecute 2 cops that arrested Rodney King. The courts hold that racial motivation is not necessary and that only the presence of rights violation and lack of due process apply. In the King case the jury found the use of excesive, punishing force was applied w/o due process. Afterwards, they all complained that they were not given the whole truth and were conned by the prosecution and the complicit judge that limited the evidence to what fit the prosecutions arguments.
That is part of the problem. The legal system in this country no longer conforms to a plain reading, nor the Founders stated intent, of the Constitution that GIVES it its authority. This is a fairly major concern for many of us and why there are so many of us here on places like FR.
That would be legislating from the bench. Criminal acts are not part of the scope of employment and barring that the criminal displayed evidence manifesting a propensity for criminal action, the employer is blameless. He has no duty to assume his workers are psychos ready to snap, as those courts and trial lawyers hold, and he has no justification to extend his jurisdiction into the relm of his employees rights and property. The employer is limited to control accidents on his parking lot and in his buildings and consider his own product, or services defect.
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.
566 jonestown
Your rights remain protected in the fact you are not obligated to work for anyone whose policies you disagree with.
My employer already restricts carry on the premises. I don't carry on their property, but there is a gun in my car right now. The car is MY property and no invention of yours will make my property theirs to control.
You still don't get that do you...
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.
566 jonestown
When they fire you, you'll ge it.
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.