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."
Come now ,such a childish retort; plus there is a HUGE difference between the rights of convicted criminals and the free citizens. Your comment shows that you have no real logic yourself and have called up the strawman.
Dear spunkets,
"I am not. The firearms are unloaded and cased in the employee's car and never come out."
Well, many others here are talking about loaded guns. I'll acknowledge that you aren't.
"'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."
I saw one link that you provided about the armored car driver. Although that goes to a specific public policy question, it is not the same as the questions covered by the FMLA. I also saw a case that you cited, Collins vs. Rizkana, which is about sexual harassment, again, not related to FMLA.
Thus, my comment stands, before the FMLA, dismissing someone for these reasons wasn't considered wrongful discharge. That's why they passed a law.
If someone intermittently took time off from work, without notice, amounting to 12 weeks per year of unauthorized leave, it is likely they would have been legally terminated. I know of no uniform rule derived from case law that would have generally permitted folks to do this prior to the FMLA.
It's ironic that you would cite the armored car driver, as this was a fellow who was able to vindicate the public policy exception to his employer's rule through the courts. All he had to do was to get a lawyer and a judge.
In the case before us, the fired workers are suing, too, so it seems they've been able to get a lawyer, too.
But as I pointed out previously, these folks aren't suing on the grounds of public policy exception to invalidate the employer's rule. In other words, they don't believe that a court would rule that there is a general right to have a gun in their car on their employer's premises, or that the employer's policy violates an important public policy. They aren't even contesting that. Only that they didn't have adequate notice.
If they thought the courts would vindicate such an exception, like the armored car drive, they'd be suing on the grounds that THE CORPORATE POLICY VIOLATED RIGHTS OR IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICIES.
It is because they have judged they could not win on those grounds that 1) they haven't sued on them, and 2) they have persuaded the legislature to change the law.
Which is fair. The legislature has the right to carve out public policy exceptions, as the federal government did with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other laws.
In Maryland, the legislature has codified a few public policy exceptions to employment at-will, including prohibiting firing folks because they are homosexuals.
Maryland, on the other hand, is not going to emulate Oklahoma's lead regarding folks keeping guns in their cars while parked on company grounds.
Some folks will think Oklahoma's actions foolish, while others will think Maryland's actions foolish. Some will think both are foolish. But as companies have the right to enforce policies that are foolish but legal, so do legislatures have the authority to pass laws that are foolish but constitutional.
"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."
Well, you brought up FMLA, not me. You brought it up in the context of a discussion about rights, and public policy exceptions to employment at-will. You're the one pushing the idea that the FMLA either codified rights or a public policy exception. Here is what you said in response to my stating that there was no public policy exception prior to the FMLA:
"Before the law the employee had to take them to court accompanied by a competent atty."
Now you're saying FMLA is about entitlements.
I don't blame you for abandoning this line of argument.
"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."
Actually, I just think if you want to carry a gun in your car, that's fine (as long as the law allows it), but if your employer doesn't want your gun on his property, don't park on his property.
"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."
Ah, couldn't avoid getting insulting, huh? Couldn't avoid the use of intemperate language, equating my arguments with the arguments of "bozos" who are "authoritarian," who paid folks in script, who dumped toxic waste, who kept the dangers of asbestos secret.
Although we differ on some questions, we had managed to keep the disagreement agreeable up until this point.
It is too bad you couldn't keep up your end of that.
I haven't ever suggested that there is no proper place for regulation in employment law.
But as a business owner, I'm cautious about laws that further restrict the range of action that an employer has. That doesn't mean I want to enslave anyone, or pour asbestos down their throat, or dump toxic waste in the rivers.
It just means that I think a business owner has a right to say what stuff can and can't be brought on his property.
Whether you agree with his opinion or not.
"No employer in his right mind would search cars for guns before this recent campaign."
Well, there are large numbers of employers, some who are very large, very profitable, very successful businesses who disagree with you. I suppose that they are all out of their right minds. In that case, they will likely be insolvent soon, so why worry? ;-)
"'does not force the employee to do anything at all'
"BS! Employees die on their way to and from work, because of criminal attack."
Park your vehicle off the company premises. Problem solved. That's what these folks have begun to do.
You don't like that? Get another job. If enough folks do that, perhaps the company will change its mind. Or, if it can't get enough workers at market rates, perhaps the facility will go out of business.
Better yet, the employees here believe that their judgment on how to run the business is superior to management's, let them start a competing company!
I'm disappointed that you had to descend to insults, spunkets.
I suppose this is because you have a very narrow range of vision, and don't acknowledge that other people of good will have radically different perspectives about these questions than you.
sitetest
The period of time spent traveling to and from work is not being discussed here; the employee has every right to carry a loaded gun in their car during that period of time. The discussion centers around the period of time from the time when the employee enters company property (the parking lot) and the time they exit company property (same parking lot).
If the employees wish to both be armed in order to defend themselves during the period of time spent traveling to and from work, and continue to work for their employer, they can park off the premises; having never entered the private property of their employer, they are not subject to his rules regarding weapons on their property.
During the period of time that they are in the building and being paid, the employer assumes responsibility for the safety of the work place, as evidenced by the many lawsuits that follow all work place shootings in the nation.
And where is the application of the "reasonable" man oft mentioned in law ? A reasonable man can easily conclude that the imposition of restrictions that cannot be met without extra-ordinary actions , effectively prohibit whatever is restricted. And I remember something in the Constitution about "the right ...shall not be infringed." It DOESN'T say only Congress shall not infringe on the right ,but that NO ONE shall, Notwithstanding, the various elitists have been breaking the chains placed upon gov't and the people have allowed this;perhaps under the doctrine of a "living Constitution" this means we have no rights. This happens to be a theory rejected by those who understand that words mean things and have no great difficulty with the meaning of ,for instance, the word IS.
That's not true at all.
I don't have to drive to work if I don't want to.
The parking lots are provided as a benefit to employees, but it doesn't negate the owner's terms of use, or his right to set rules regarding access.
If this legislation holds up, the very same people advocating the violation of an employer's rights to his own property, will be in here bitching about the lost jobs when Weyerhauser moved their plant to Mexico.
You are EXACTLY correct!
Several years ago, I started asking anti-2nd amendment people to name JUST ONE CRIMINAL that they know of that has registered his gun. I'm still waiting to see the first CRIMINAL register HIS gun.
CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN LAWS (or any other kind of laws). That's why they are called CRIMINALS!!! They don't abide by them.
"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."
You all keep harping on "shall not be infringed" as if that's all the drafters said.
The right to bear arms relates to the security of a free State, and to the people's right to organize into a militia in order to defend the State.
That's EXACTLY what the Amendment says.
It doesn't say that you have a right to keep a loaded weapon in your car to protect your cows from coyotes, nor does it say that you have a right to violate the property rights of others.
"A well regulated Militia..."
Were these individuals part of a "well-regulated militia" on their way to or from training?
No.
"... being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Where these people arguing that their weapons were there to defend "the security of a free State"?
No, they claim that the guns were necessary to prevent coyotes from killing their cows.
It's not a Second Amendment case at all.
The founders specified the right of the people,NOT the States to keep and bear arms.
And just as the style of writing has changes ,cursive f and s being different from modern usuage, the phrase well-regulated was one a reference to what we now speak of as fully-equipt. Other discussions have brought up the facts that laws once required each person in some states to keep a minimum amount of powder,shot, and a firearm;they seldom specified where and with whom he should practice the use of said arms.
Dear Luis Gonzalez,
"The legislature acted out of self-preservation to accommodate its constituency, they will now blame the Court system for their law being rightfully overturned."
I'm not sure that's true. I'm not sure the courts will overturn such a law. Minnesota's concealed carry law restricts employers from banning firearms in parking facilities.
I haven't heard of any challenges to that provision.
Interestingly, though, it appears that the employer can prohibit an employee from carrying a firearm with him in his vehicle while he is in his vehicle to conduct business for the employer.
sitetest
What IS it about some people that can't grasp the fact that those inclined to rob,rape,and murder don't give a damn about gun laws (excepting that it makes their sprees likely to be longer and bloodier )?
The act goes beyond rights protection.
"I'm disappointed that you had to descend to insults, spunkets. "
They're not insults. They're my apprasal and anology of the employer's actions here. To wit:
"Park your vehicle off the company premises. Problem solved. ...You don't like that? Get another job."
IOWs, let 'em eat cake.
"I suppose this is because you have a very narrow range of vision, and don't acknowledge that other people of good will have radically different perspectives about these questions than you."
That's right. I value my fellow's Freedom and honor their rights. I don't see them as potential postals deserving such tyranical treatment, nor do I appreciate the libel written about them stating and otherwise hinting and beating around the bush that, that is what they are. I see no threat from folks carrying their firearms in their vehicle and leaving them there before entering the workplace. It has been common practice all over the country, and now all of a sudden it's a nuisance? Not!
"Well, there are large numbers of employers, some who are very large, very profitable, very successful businesses who disagree with you. I suppose that they are all out of their right minds."
I described the former state of affairs and noted this campaign is not old, it is recent. I also gave the reason. That was, because the legislatures and courts failed to do their bidding.
Park offsite? How long before the local ne'r do wells figure out that line of cars that appears and changes with the shift contains goodys? Not only have those hard working, loyal employees been inconvenienced, they've had their property placed at risk by the benevolent employer. They have a choice, right? They can find another job, our abandon exercise of their rights.
"It just means that I think a business owner has a right to say what stuff can and can't be brought on his property. "
Seems to me, that some folks are being dictated to by the trial lawyers and leftists. Instead of facing them, they're turning on their fellow citizens and hard working, loyal employees in the hope of escaping their jaws. Problem is that they'll be hungry again tomorrow.
Parse, parse, parse.
Interpret when it suits your argument, and take literal when it suits your argument.
LOL, I'm a statist!
That's the plain English of it and the intent of the founders.
Dear spunkets,
"'Now you're saying FMLA is about entitlements.'
"The act goes beyond rights protection."
You're not kidding. However, you cited no court cases where whatever rights you think the FMLA may have vindicated were upheld by the courts. This isn't a codification of rights that arose from the common law.
As far as I can see, it is nothing more than the creation of entitlements.
Twelve weeks a year of no-notice, no-fault, no-consequence intermittent leave. If the employee doesn't come in Monday or Tuesday, but is able to make it in on Wednesday, the employee is not obligated to notify the employer ahead of time that he will be back on Wednesday. If the employee shows up on Wednesday, he must be paid for the day, even if the employer, anticipating several days of break in service, has done the responsible thing and hired a temp.
This pattern may continue until the 12 weeks per year are used up.
If it's highly burdensome on the employer, tough. After all, he's just an authoritarian bozo out to dump toxic waste in the water and pay everyone in company script. Right?
I don't blame you for wanting to drop the FMLA from the conversation. Just another left-wing law to steal from business and give to "the deserving." It's for the chil'run, right??
"They're not insults. They're my apprasal and anology of the employer's actions here."
You weren't analogizing from these previous arguments to current employers' actions in this case, you were equating my arguments with those justifying the use of company script, the dumping of toxic waste, and the hiding of the effects of asbestos.
You said,
"Your argumnets are the same as those put forth by the bozos paying in script,..."
Quite insulting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Your arguments remind me of certain sorts of folks, but I have refrained from saying of whom or what they remind me. Why? Because I prefer to keep the conversation civil, and do not want to offer offense, even though the comparisons I have in mind seem quite valid to me.
"'I suppose this is because you have a very narrow range of vision, and don't acknowledge that other people of good will have radically different perspectives about these questions than you.'
"That's right."
Unlike you, I can credit you with good will. Unlike you, I can see your point, even though I disagree with it, and can think that you hold it in good faith.
So you don't acknowledge that other people of good will may have radically different perspectives about these questions than you.
Sorta sad.
"'Park your vehicle off the company premises. Problem solved. ...You don't like that? Get another job.'
"IOWs, let 'em eat cake."
In other words, don't force your employer to enable your rights. Your employer isn't going to buy you a printing press, nor is he going to pay for your attorney when you have the right to counsel when you're arrested for driving drunk to or from work.
"I see no threat from folks carrying their firearms in their vehicle and leaving them there before entering the workplace."
Here is something from an article that was posted a few days ago here on FreeRepublic:
"In 2003, Doug Williams, an employee at a Lockheed Martin plant in Meridian, Miss., left the building, retrieved a shotgun and a semiautomatic rifle from his truck and returned, shooting 14 workers and killing six."
It happens.
Here's the link to the original article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&e=21&u=/usatoday/20041210/bs_usatoday/companiesthatbangunsputondefensive
"Park offsite? How long before the local ne'r do wells figure out that line of cars that appears and changes with the shift contains goodys?"
Hmm... If the ne'er-do-wells figure the guns are in the vehicles parked off-site, what will happen when you force companies to let these folks park on-site?
Do you think that the ne'er-do-wells might figure out that there are guns in some of those cars being parked in company parking lots? Even some ne'er-do-wells can read, and see this debate raging on.
So now, the company must not only suffer the presence of firearms on its property, when it doesn't want them. Now, the company must be concerned about the possibility that the ne'er-do-wells will figure out that the guns are in the COMPANY'S parking lot.
Of course, the first time someone breaks into a vehicle and steals a firearm from the company lot, the company will be held legally responsible for the consequential damages, unless it can prove it took every precaution possible to prevent that.
Again, the law will be used to coerce the company into helping to pay for the exercise of someone else's rights. And to pay when the exercise of that right goes awry.
"'It just means that I think a business owner has a right to say what stuff can and can't be brought on his property.'
"Seems to me, that some folks are being dictated to by the trial lawyers and leftists."
Seems to me that some folks just want the freedom to decide who can bring what onto their property, free from dictates of do-gooders of the left or the right.
sitetest
what does it feel like to have mother & father that are brother & sister
Dear jonestown,
"No you aren't.
"Your specious 'no wit - sorry' bit is evidence in itself that you're playing the 'one up' game called the dozens."
I think we call that "projection."
Have you been seeing anyone for that? ;-)
sitetest
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.