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."
I agree with this case, but I don't see how it is analagous to the example you gave of a mother not being able to find a babysitter.
spunkets wrote:
Henry Perritt Jr., one of this country's foremost scholars on labor and employment law, advocates a comprehensive test for analyzing wrongful discharge claims involving violations of public policy. Perritt proposes four elements of a public policy tort case:
(1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element). Henry H. Perritt Jr., Workplace Torts: Rights and Liabilities § 3.7 (1991) (hereinafter Perritt).
(2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element). Perritt § 3.14.
(3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element). Perritt § 3.19.
(4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element). Perritt § 3.21. See also Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 69-70, 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995) (adopting Perritt's four element test).
See...
I couldn't actually force you to submit to a body cavity search, but I could make you leave my property if you refused.
So, does anyone who wanders on to your property get branded Slave then as well? Just trying to figure out how far you plan on abrogating another individuals equal Rights...,
Strawman argument. I can't force you to stay on my property any more than you can force me to let you remain on my property. No rights are abrogated by me kicking you off my property for refusing to follow my rules.
Are you actually going to say that one persons Rights can easily override another persons equal Rights? Kinda destroys the whole precept this country was founded on doesn't it? What next? Gonna try and claim Prima Noctem on your neighbors daughter? After all, if a restriction in the Constitution only applies to government action....
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It says "...the right of the people...". That is us. We individual citizens of the United States. Waiting for your judicial heros to stand up and mouth the correct words is like Galileo waiting in his tower for the Church to realize that the Sun does not orbit the Earth.
If you don't want a strawman in return, don't set one up to being with...
And your property (your car) is on someone else's property (the parking lot). I'm not sure why you keep missing that point.
So you are claiming additive Rights over my property? Can I take your wallet the next time you step on to my property? Why is that so hard to understand?
Modernman wrote:
Why use "caselaw"? --- Because that's what we do in a common law system. You are advocating a novel legal position- you are claiming that exercising one's right to regulate whether firearms come onto one's property violates public policy.
Other than your opinion, what legal basis do you have for this claim?
What strawman have I used?
No, I'm not. I'm saying that you have no right to bear arms on private property without the owner's consent. If you do not have a right to do something in the first place, I do not violate your rights when I tell you to stop doing it on my property.
What next? Gonna try and claim Prima Noctem on your neighbors daughter? After all, if a restriction in the Constitution only applies to government action....
Rape is a crime. Outlawing rape is within the proper power of state and local government.
It says "...the right of the people...". That is us. We individual citizens of the United States. Waiting for your judicial heros to stand up and mouth the correct words is like Galileo waiting in his tower for the Church to realize that the Sun does not orbit the Earth.
It's an unsettled legal issue. I believe that the 2nd Amendment does recognize the individual right to bear arms, but there are many people who disagree. Until a ruling is made by SCOTUS on this issue, it will remain open.
That being said, whatever way SCOTUS determines this issue in the future, that will not change the fact that you do not have a right to bear arms on private property contrary to the owner's wishes.
You joined the thread about 400 posts ago. Do you really want a complete list? If so, go back and compile one. I don't have the time today...
I am claiming that I can set the rules for access to my property. Those rules can require that you consent to searches of your property while it is parked on my property. I doubt I can legally force you to submit to such searches, but I can kick you and your property off my property if you refuse the search.
Can I take your wallet the next time you step on to my property?
No, but you can say "give me your wallet if you want to remain on my property." If I refuse, you can kick me out.
Dear jonestown,
Oh, c'mon now, can't you think up your own comebacks?
Don't you have any originality?
;-)
sitetest
Yes. But using your argument, it would only restrict government employees from raping people.
The only reason it is unsettled is because of the modern legal fictions created by those who really can't grab more power for themselves with an armed populace. As the language of the Zmendment is quite clear, why does the USSC need to say anything on the subject at all? What other Rights do we have that must first be ennumerated by them before we can be said to have them? Is there a list somewhere?
And it remains my contention that I am not in any way violating my employers property Rights. They can no more claim a Right to my property than I could claim of theirs. Period.
The clear words of the 2nd support the peoples position. - Our rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
jones
It's an interesting case, but I don't see any support in there for the idea that public policy requires me to let you bring firearms onto my property.
1) The mom has a duty/right to care for the child.
2) The child would be abandoned had the mom gone to work.
3) The phone conversation.
4) Employer's lack of other reason and the presence of evidence showing good work record.
Why should I do your work for you? You claimed I've used strawmen, I say otherwise. Your inability to provide proof of your claim shows that the claim is false.
If you willingly allow police officers into your house because they are looking for illegal drugs, and you KNOW that they will not find any, but during search they find child pornography in your house, will your defense be that the pornography was seized illegally because you did not express willingness to allow a search for the porn?
Nonsense. A law properly passed by the government applies to actions by everyone. Constitutional rights only apply to actions by government.
What other Rights do we have that must first be ennumerated by them before we can be said to have them? Is there a list somewhere?
SCOTUS simply interprets the Constitution in response to legal cases brought before it. Up until now, the question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals has not been brought before the court. Therefore, the highest court in the land has not determined this issue.
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.