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 spunkets,
"'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."
Yes, well, I should have been more specific. As we have been talking about loaded firearms (look at all the references thereto by defenders of the right to bear arms, even on another's property), I was not referring to firearms that are unloaded, cased, and locked away strictly for the purposes of transportation.
Try putting your loaded gun in your car and driving through Washington, DC. Stop a cop, pop the trunk, and show it to him. Unless you have a permit specifically to carry that gun around specifically in Washington, DC (nearly impossible to get for a private citizen), you will be arrested and prosecuted. The law has been upheld many times, all the way to the Supreme Court.
However, I'm unfamiliar with the case law with reference to this statute, and a little googling from at least one pro-RKBA website indicates that some localities seem to fail to honor this statute, and that there is some legal question as to how it applies within localities.
Nevertheless, even here, there are several pertinent issues to address. First, I will remind you that posters have been referring to loaded weapons. These aren't covered by this legislation.
Second, you're interpreting the statute in a way that overrides a property owner's right to restrict firearms on his property. But the statute applies to a gun owner's right to transport. I think you might need to make the case that because the property owner forbade your unloaded and cased firearm from entering his property, you could not then transport it. The property owner's response is, I'm not preventing you from transporting your firearm, I'm just preventing you from transporting your firearm THROUGH MY PROPERTY.
You might say that you have an absolute right to transport it wherever you wish, even to the property owner's property, but that is the equivalent of saying that you may transport it even to places where you may be legally prevented from entering yourself. In this case, it seems that perhaps your firearm has more rights than you do. ;-)
The right to free movement is actually constitutionally-protected. No one, generally speaking, may forbid you from traveling generally from one place to another. But your constitutionally-protected right to free movement does not include a proviso that you may exercise that right through my property without my permission.
And even if I grant you permission, there are all manner of restrictions I may place on you.
I may allow you to walk on or through my property, but not bring a vehicle.
I may permit you to ride in a vehicle, but not a foreign-made vehicle.
I may permit you to bring a vehicle, but not to ride a horse onto my property.
I may require you to remove your shoes while on my property.
I may require you not to bring articles that violate my religious or moral tenets.
I may require you not to speak as you pass onto or through my property.
I may require you not to engage in certain types of speech as you pass onto or through my property.
That's because, you generally have no right to be on my property. Having no right to be there, you have little right to dictate the terms of your presence.
If you may not even exercise a more basic right of free movement by traversing onto or across my property without my permission, why do you now have a subsidiary right of traversing across my property with your gun in tow?
"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."
First, the employer is responsible for what happens on his premises. The company-owned parking lot is, indeed, the workplace, from the employer's legal perspective.
"Infringement of transport of unloaded, cased firearms out of reach is not allowed according to that law."
As I've said, I've seen some quibbling about the specifics about that. But you'd need to show that you cannot transport your firearm without coming on to my private property with it.
sitetest
"Just as it is not illegal or unconstitutional for companies to have employment policies that you think are foolish, stupid, or inane, it is not unconstitutional for legislatures to pass foolish, stupid, inane, and even unduly burdensome laws. "
Govm'ts only justification is to protect rights. Where it protects rights, it's acts are justified. Where it deviates from that, it's acts are repugnant.
"Would this "right" to miss work exist without this specific law or something like it? Nope. "
The rights involved are the employer's and the mom's to care for her child. There is no right to miss work. The govm't recognizes that the employer's world isn't going to fall apart, because the mom's day care disappeared temporarily. They note and acknowledge the priority of rights. Just as they should note and state the correct boundaries in the present case.
But if posted you do have the right to search your guests cars, purse etc...thus the point!
Dear spunkets,
"Recognition of wrongful discharge from public policy violation existed prior to the FLA."
That's true, but before the FMLA, dismissing someone for these reasons wasn't considered wrongful discharge. That's why they passed a law.
"The concept is one of the motivations for it's creation."
Yes, a bunch of folks decided they knew better the details of the operation of individual businesses in this regard than the managers of the businesses themselves.
"Govm'ts only justification is to protect rights. Where it protects rights, it's acts are justified. Where it deviates from that, it's acts are repugnant."
That's one way to look at it. But not everyone will agree with you, and everyone does pretty much have a say. As well, not everyone will agree with how you define rights.
In any event, by your definition, I view the FMLA as repugnant then. I don't believe that it legitimately protects rights due the employee, and I do believe that it unjustly circumscribes the rights of employers.
And there's the rub - different folks have different perceptions. Thus, to some degree, law, practically speaking, becomes a negotiation between parties as much as or more than it is a protection of rights.
Perhaps you view the FMLA as a vindication of a single mom's rights. I view it as an outrageous and onerous burden on me, personally, as it can dramatically and unpredictably reduce my ability to conduct business, without warning. I view it as violation of my right to conduct my business affairs as I see fit.
"The rights involved are the employer's and the mom's to care for her child."
Not sure what you mean by the "employer's and the mom's to care..."
As an employer, I have neither the right nor the duty to directly care for the children of my employees.
"There is no right to miss work."
There is now. ;-)
It certainly is not a right for the mom to care for her child, as that right is close to absolute. But this right, as granted in law, ends after 12 weeks of absences.
It is a right precisely to miss work. To miss up to 12 weeks of work, for various reasons, in a 12-month period, one day at a time, without the need to notify the employer with any significant length of notice, or the need to try to work out the timing of the missed days with the employer.
"The govm't recognizes that the employer's world isn't going to fall apart, because the mom's day care disappeared temporarily."
So the government tells me, the employer. And if I don't believe 'em, well just who do I trust, the government or my own lyin' eyes? LOL.
The fact is, in smaller organizations, although there may be lots of days the mom can miss without catastrophe befalling the employer, sometimes there are days that if the mom misses work, the employer will suffer significant consequences.
And the government's definition of "temporarily" is 12 weeks. And not twelve weeks for which I can plan. The employee has the right to use those twelve weeks on an ad hoc basis, even a day in, day out basis, until they are used up.
In other words, folks with causes covered under the law, can take up to three months off from work in a twelve month period, a day here, a day there, without prior notice.
Guess what? I don't hire folks I don't need to show up reliably for work.
But then, you just told me, the government knows that I CAN do without employees who regularly show up for work. And of course, I believe the government, right?
"They note and acknowledge the priority of rights. Just as they should note and state the correct boundaries in the present case."
No, they define by law the limits to my freedom of action as an employer. And they do this without any regard to how the boundaries play out in my own circumstances.
But it is interesting that you say, "Just as they should note and state the correct boundaries in the present case."
You are saying what OUGHT to be, not what IS.
Throughout this conversation, I have focused on what is, with little comment on what ought to be. You are saying that employees ought to have a right to park their firearm-ladened vehicles on their employers' property, I have said, well, for now, mostly they are not able to do so without the employer's permission.
I will go further that I do not believe it is a "right" that the government should vindicate in law. It may be a sensible policy, but not everyone might agree that it is a sensible policy. At that point, you are using the law to coerce property owners and business owners to permit the use of their property as you see fit.
Although I acknowledge that there are circumstances that absolutely require that legal coercion, I believe that government should be reticent in using that power. Not everyone agrees with your version of what is right, or mine, either.
Whatever one might say about this, an employer who forbids employees to bring firearms onto the employer's property does not slay or assault the employee, does not force the employee to do anything at all, other than not to park his firearm-ladened car on the employer's property.
sitetest
Firearms in employees vehicles are prime examples of private property to be protected.
Last time I checked, none of those employees were forced to bring their car onto the private property of their employer. The minute they consented to have their car searched, that private property claim went out the window. The only private property under attack here is that of the business owner.
I'll now await your next nonsensical reply.
jones;
Firearms in employees vehicles are prime examples of private property to be protected. -- As the Oklahoma legisature agreed in the case at issue.
You can say it as many times as you want, but you're quite simply wrong. It's clear at this point that no matter how many facts are placed in front of you, you'll foolishly stick to your fantasyland. But by all means, go right ahead making a fool of yourself.
I'll now await your next nonsensical reply.
Good one! The "I know you are but what am I" variant is quite revealing with regard to the sophistication of your debating skills.
Of course, they wouldn't do that, as they cannot guarantee their safety at work or in the employee parking lot.
I am not. The firearms are unloaded and cased in the employee's car and never come out.
"That's true, but before the FMLA, dismissing someone for these reasons wasn't considered wrongful discharge. That's why they passed a law. "
Before the law the employee had to take them to court accompanied by a competent atty. I included the link to show that this was the case.
"It certainly is not a right for the mom to care for her child, as that right is close to absolute. But this right, as granted in law, ends after 12 weeks of absences. "
The govm't doesn't grant rights. The govm't can only recognize and acknowledge, that they exist, or not. The FMLA creates entitlements. I'm not otherwise going off on the tangent of entitlements and the FMLA.
"You are saying what OUGHT to be, not what IS."
Just the opposite. You seem to think the right of self defense and the exersise of that right, to and from work is insignificant compared to the employer's "right" to dictate from his throne. You seem to think the hard won legal battles to regain what was taken away by authoritarians before, should be surrendered to the same bozos in different shoes now. Your argumnets are the same as those put forth by the bozos paying in script, redeemable in the company store, by those who kept the dangerous properties of such things as asbestos secret, toxic waste dumping, ect.
No employer in his right mind would search cars for guns before this recent campaign. I gave you the facts of traditional practice. The employee's rights are important and the employer can not trample them as he sees fit to do. When he does, it is the govm'ts job to step in and correct the rights violations.
"does not force the employee to do anything at all"
BS! Employees die on their way to and from work, because of criminal attack. That is real. Postal boogie men arising out of good hard working employees treated like human beings is not. The employer has a duty to recognize the rights of his employees and honor them, whether it's their right to mount an effective defense before and after work, or to bird hunt with their kid off the clock.
None of the SOBs would shed a tear if one of help was raped and chopped to pieces either. They'd just see that as more fuel for a further crackdown on Freedom and rights.
He didn't go to jail, he was dismissed for knowingly violating workplace rules.
Note that the employer did nothing wrong, as evident by the fact that they weren't charged with anything.
In fact, the best proof that the employer was doing something not only legal, but within their rights, is the fact that in order to stop the employer from continuing to do what they were doing, the legislature had to make it illegal.
What does that mean?
It means that what was done WAS LEGAL IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD.
I'm sure they would lift all restrictions regarding guns in the workplace the second that every employee, and every family member of every employee signed a release absolving the company from any financial, legal, or criminal accountability arising from a work place shooting.
As a matter of fact, and as I stated earlier on the thread, if the Oklahoma State legislature and the people of Oklahoma believe that passing a law violating the right of property owners to set rules concerning access and use of their property with the excuse that guns make the workplace more safe, then the legislature should pass a second law making it illegal to sue employers for injuries relating to work place shootings, and they (people of Oklahoma and their legislature) should absorb all responsibilities.
In other words...they should put their money where their mouth is.
It's OK for the business owner to bring in a gun and keep it in his desk, or wear it on his belt if he wishes. But the peon tax paying employees must remain unprotected.
Nope. The legislature recognized that the employee's rights were being violated. I already outlined it and the legislature's floor commentary I'm sure affirms it. Laws like this are created, because the rights violations are recognized first. Folks don't make laws and then say, "Oh look, here's a new law that defines some new rights violation."
"It means that what was done WAS LEGAL IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD."I posted a link to a relevant analysis above and considerable comment on how the facts of this case fit the following test.
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).
The employer could have been sued for wrongful termination. The legislature created the law as above and to releive the citizens of OK from similar attempts by employers to usurp their rights.
I noted that none of the employers that are pushing for the grab have offered to hire armed guards to escort their help to and from work.
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.