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."
Dear jonestown,
As no one requires you to come onto my property, no one requires you to work for me, it is not an abridgement of your rights if I require that you not exercise them on my property.
Whether I forbid you to make a speech for John Kerry, or forbid you from having your church meet in my driveway, or forbid you from bringing a gun onto my property, because I am not forcing you onto my property, I am not abridging your rights.
You really need to rethink this one.
sitetest
There is no right to feel safe. Furthermore the data show that your fears are groundless, as I said in the last post. There's no data that support your contention. The postals that occured previously occured after the subject left. Several of them put on special outfits for the occasion.
"Lots of folks don't cool off in a ocuple of minutes."
Where's your data supporting shootouts over temper flairs? John Lott's work shows postals don't go that way and general public displays are very rare indeed. I'd guess they are less in number than the number of todlers that drown in 5 gal buckets.
"But another more basic problem is this: I at least have an argument that I can regulate what does and doesn't come on to my property. I can't regulate what stays outside my property. "
Your argument fails when the history of legitimate company policy is looked at. As I said, this measure goes outside the workplace into the employee's property. It violates his right to transport firearms. Those firearms are never used for criminal purpose, there is no criminal intent and there is no history that the employee is a danger to himself or others. Regardless of the article's claim that these policies are old, they are not. They are recent and they are a response to legislatures and courts refusing to take the guns away.
"I have a relatively-broad right to tell you that you may not bring something on my property, period. Even if you keep it in your car. Why? Because it's my property! "
The right is limited to deciding whether, or not the car can be there and you want the particular employee. You can not base the decision to employ, or threaten to fire him if he fails to buckle under to your extortion demand. His right to transport his property is his. His right to keep the contents of his vehicle private exists. His right to do that for whatever reason exists, especially for the purpose of his, or her self defense.
The demand for abandonment of those named rights, because of specious, unsupported, libelous claims against employees accompanied by the threat of firing for failing to do so, is extortion. That's the law.
"If I tell you, "I think you have a gun in your car - move it off my land." and you refuse, I can have your car removed without your permission, and at your cost. "
Sure, but you may not demand I acknowledge your nonsense, or let you search the car. Such bogus human relationship is allowed in at will employment. Hint at direct violation of anti discrimination laws and you're toast. Also, and this is very important, if there is a contract that would otherwise be in effect, except for the bogus outburst, you are liable for it's breach. If that outburst is clear extortion, then you are responsible for that also.
"In order to prove extortion, I think you first have to prove that you have the right to bring a firearm onto my property even though I have forbidden it. "
No. All I have to do is point out your property boundaries, the scope of employment, the rights you are attempting to cause me to abandon, that those rights you want me to abandon are in no way connected to workplace safety and in fact your focus ignored more obvious and known threats, and that your efforts are part of a conspiracy of leftists and gun grabbers to erode rights and establish precident. These rules came into effect not after a few postals, but after the grabbers failed to effectively prohibit their transportation and use in the legislatures and courts. I'll toss in the efforts of the critical infrastructure protection folks, because they're a big part of this push. They probably provided the impetus for the push to the natural grabbers.
"If someone shouts, "I'm going to kill you!" and then leaves the premises to go home, the authorities can be involved before the individual returns. "
Strange. All the hired security folks and resources spent to violate rights and none to actually protect the workplace. If the concern was postals, there'd be security in place. The concern's not postals, that's why the security and lawyers in place are to harass gunowners.
You really need to rethink this one, because you're 'thinking' wrong.
You claim above that you are not obligated to obey our basic rule of Constitutional law, -- that only a coercive government would enforce our Constitutions 2nd Amendment.
In our Republic you are obligated to obey such basic rules of Constitutional law.
It is against the clear 'public policy' of the 2nd Amendment to unreasonably require your employees to strip their vehicle of arms before parking in the lot provided them.
The Oklahoma Legislature agreed. - You don't.
Conservatives support our RKBA's.
You don't.
Your briefcase is your personal property, and an extension of your personal property as is your car, would you then consider taking a loaded gun into your workplace in your locked briefcase?
You have no right to bring the weapon into the property owner's space regardless of whether you bring it in concealed (in your car, your briefcase, or your trousers) or openly. The property owner's rights allows him to set the rules for the access, use, and stay by anyone on his property, and the rule is that no guns are allowed in the space that makes up his property. The gun is in your car, and your car is on his property, which means that the gun is on his property, and that means that you have violated his rules for access and use.
You can be fired for having a loaded weapon in your car if you park your car on his property.
Actually, this is one of those questions that street cops are well versed in.
I've both owned and run businesses that cater to the general public, and as both owner and manager I've contacted the local police to have individuals removed from the businesses and issued trespassing warrants on many an occasion.
Dear spunkets,
Whether you think the reasoning is good or bad, or whether I think it is irrelevant. Whether the property owner thinks it's good is what counts.
"Sure, but you may not demand I acknowledge your nonsense, or let you search the car."
If those are the terms of entering my property, and I let you know before you entered, you submitted to the search by not turning around and leaving.
"Such bogus human relationship is allowed in at will employment."
Well, since, I think, 49 of the 50 states operate out of an employment at-will framework, we're in good shape, here!
"Hint at direct violation of anti discrimination laws and you're toast."
Anti-discrimination laws only apply to protected groups. Can you name the five federally-protected groups of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? And the two other protected classes that come from two other statutes?
I have bad news for you: gun owners aren't one of them. Federal law permits all sorts of employment discrimination. Federal law permits me to discriminate against acknowledged Democrats (or Republicans), federal law permits me to discriminate against homosexuals (or heterosexuals). Federal law permits me to discriminate against fat people (or skinny people) (as long as their fatness or skinniness is not a disability). Federal law permits me to discriminate against very tall people and very short people (so long as I'm careful not to permit that discrimination become a disparate impact against on of the protected classes). Federal law permits me to disrciminate in employment.
Legally.
"The right is limited to deciding whether, or not the car can be there and you want the particular employee. You can not base the decision to employ, or threaten to fire him if he fails to buckle under to your extortion demand. His right to transport his property is his. His right to keep the contents of his vehicle private exists. His right to do that for whatever reason exists, especially for the purpose of his, or her self defense."
But you don't have a right to park on someone's property. Or to work for someone. A company may extend the courtesy of permitting you to park on their property, provided that you agree to their terms. If you violate their terms, then when they fire you, they haven't fired you for exercising your rights, they have fired you for failing to abide by the agreement related to parking on their property - an act not protected by any rights.
You always had the right not to park on their property.
The agreement doesn't extort you, because you have no right to park on their property.
To the degree that your argument has any validity (and it is quite speculative at that - in many places, it's illegal to keep a gun in your car when you aren't in it, so there is no nationally-recognized "right" to keep a gun in your car), it is that the employer may not make the decision to employ based on whether you carry guns in your car that you keep OFF the employer's property, or whether you choose to park your car on the employer's property or not (provided that you abide by the employer's terms).
Because that is the choice always open to you: not to park on the employer's property. If you were contractually required by the employer to park on the employer's property, then your argument would at least be on-point, if still speculative.
You are asserting a right that you may bring a firearm onto someone's property, so long as you conceal it in your car. What about if you conceal it in your heavy overcoat? Your overcoat is also your property.
sitetest
Dear jonestown,
You can repeat your argument all you like. It won't make it true no matter how hard you wish it so.
sitetest
Exactly. Based upon your statement it appears you recognize that violating the rule may result in the loss of your job, but you are willing to accept that given the risk you'd incur by not carrying. That's the right attitude.
What we see from these employees is that they'd rather run to government than accept the consequences of their actions. That isn't conservative behavior.
Yep.
Replace "firearm" with virtually anything else, and you'd have unanimous agreement on this forum that Weyerhauser was within their right to fire.
So in short, you agree that your claim that companies cannot conduct business in the US unless they abide by the Constitution was a falsehood.
I never said they were.
"The agreement doesn't extort you, because you have no right to park on their property. "
The agreement doesn't extort you, because you have no right to park on their property."
That's right, there is no right to park on someone else's private property. I listed the rights involved and you ignored them. You are also addressing the private property right of the employer as some sort of absolute that exists in a vacuum.
" in many places, it's illegal to keep a gun in your car when you aren't in it, so there is no nationally-recognized "right" to keep a gun in your car"
I've never known any. McClure-Volkmer, or the firearms protection act acknowledges the right to transport personal firearms and requires govm'ts at all levels to provide for it. Infringement of transport of unloaded, cased firearms out of reach is not allowed according to that law. It is certainly expected that during travelling the driver will exit and leave the vehicle unattended.
"Because that is the choice always open to you: not to park on the employer's property."
Most large businesses and many smaller ones have lots that were required by zoning to keep the employees from taking up all the area's parking spaces. Employees parking off site will cause residential only parking signs to be posted in some cases. Otherwise simple no parking signs.
" What about if you conceal it in your heavy overcoat? Your overcoat is also your property. "
The difference is between storage and use. If it's on your person and not in storage, it's being used and has entered the workplace.
"employment at-will"
A single mom has a work has a good work and attendance history. She calls in and tells the boss that she doesn't have a babysitter for that day. The boss demands that she comes in, or she's fired. She stays home and is fired. Does she have a tort case for being fired w/o just cause?
FBI says the usual postal happens 9 months after dismissal. The early ones are 3 months after dismissed.
Courts have said the same thing in numerous cases. The police can search your car without a warrant in many more circumstances than they can search your house without a warrant, for example.
Just because me or my property is on your property does not give you unlimited ownership Rights of that property. The most you could do is recind the invite and tell me to park elsewhere.
Of course, none of that supports your anti gun agenda, so no I guess you'll either twist what I just said or take the whole thing off in another direction. Again. You people are pathetic. Get some help...
You keep saying this, with no backup. Do you have any case law that would support this position, or are you just making an argument based on wishful thinking?
I'd say no. In 49 of 50 states, an employer does not need 'just cause' to fire you.
You can make such searches a condition of allowing me onto your property. If I don't like those conditions, I'm free to give you the finger and walk away. If I'm already on your property, you can demand to search my car. If I refuse, you can require me to remove my car and my person from your property.
Dear sitetest,
You can repeat your argument all you like. It won't make it true no matter how hard you wish it so.
jones
Ole jones backs nothing up, you're arguing against his/her unchangeable, predisposed, non-grounded in law "logic".
People think that law is what they THINK it should be, not what it actually is.
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.