Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work
Telegraph ^ | 11/12/04 | Alec Russell in Valliant and Scott Heiser in Washington

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."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; weyerhaeuser; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 841-856 next last
To: Mulder

No, right to work is an anti-union measure. Not the same thing at all. At will states refer to the employer's carte blanche ability to terminate the employment contract at will.


61 posted on 12/11/2004 7:39:30 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mulder

"Apples and oranges. One relates to his actions while at work, the other relates to his private contents in his private vehicle..."

on the company's property.


62 posted on 12/11/2004 7:40:16 AM PST by toddlintown (Pull another beer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Melas

Virginia is a "right-to-work" state. I've never heard of the term "at will" state. What states are?


63 posted on 12/11/2004 7:40:58 AM PST by GummyIII (Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

That does it. I will take it to the extreme. No one may come on my property unless they are naked and submit to a full body cavity search every morning.


64 posted on 12/11/2004 7:41:12 AM PST by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

I have no idea. Perhaps he gave permission to search? Most sign it and forget it, but at my wife's place of employment, you sign a permission slip for them to search your vehicle when you get your employee parking sticker. It's the employee's choice, he/she doesn't have to sign it, but then he/she would have to find another place to park.


65 posted on 12/11/2004 7:41:36 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Modok

Howling.... (make note...don't go visit Modok....)


66 posted on 12/11/2004 7:42:09 AM PST by GummyIII (Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

And what's worse I am told that I have a "responsibility" to do this, because if someone hides drugs on their person and brings them onto my property where they are discovered, my property may be seized.


67 posted on 12/11/2004 7:45:09 AM PST by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

Really? The at-will doctrine is hardly new. I just googled "at will" and came up with thousands of matches. This one was the best: http://www.rbs2.com/atwill.htm which is a history of at-will employment laws in the United States.


68 posted on 12/11/2004 7:46:27 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Melas

LOL..I was googling, too. Thanks. Somehow that one slipped by me. I'll go see what I can learn.


69 posted on 12/11/2004 7:48:31 AM PST by GummyIII (Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Melas

I have yet to see ANY company that has a written policy that doesn't forbid drugs, weapons, and alcohol on the property ;and they always include the statement that your vehicle is subject to search as a condition of the employment agreement. Even though the paper states that you are an at-will employee and that there is no contract, Seems as though the companies want to have their cake and eat it too. I would love to see a company sued for preventing their employees from defending themselves against crazed persons instead of stupid suits demanding more unarmed security guards, cameras, and other passive measures that will NOT stop a murderer.


70 posted on 12/11/2004 7:49:50 AM PST by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: nevergore
+++The issue is not 2nd ammendment rights but property rights....+++

I suppose you also grant the "company" the right to forbid CB radios in your car, forbid CD players in your car, forbid V8 engines in your car ad infinitum ad nauseum?

You may not need a weapon at work but between home and work is the hazard for many and the right of firearms possession is not based upon need. I work for the U.S. Government and am prohibited from bringing a firearm or other weapons to work in my automobile. If we bring needs into the question, I have never needed a firearm between home an work but nearly needed one at work a few years ago when a disgruntled worker started killing others on the job.

I will agree with the company about weapons outside of the vehicle but inside the vehicle, it is none of their business.

71 posted on 12/11/2004 7:50:07 AM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

Unless you live in a mansion, your guests will park on the street. Texas has a law which allows proprietors to prohibit guns in their facilities (but not guns in the cars in their parking lots). In short, if there is no law that prohibits gun owners from having firearms in their vehicles, then the gun is no different than a Confederate Battle flag on the windshield or a crucifix hanging from the mirror. Using that Company "rule" to $h|tc@n an employee is a subterfuge.

You are correct, however, in the definition of terms "at will" vs. "right to work". One relates to rights of the worker while the other relates to rights of the employer.


72 posted on 12/11/2004 7:50:15 AM PST by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
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.

The English Media. Proudly not "getting it" since April 19th, 1775.

73 posted on 12/11/2004 7:52:30 AM PST by Hat-Trick (Do you trust a government that cannot trust you with guns?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
So many morons, so little time. When will they grasp that the no-gun policy only HELPS a spree murderer, by giving him a wide open field of helpless victims?


74 posted on 12/11/2004 8:00:58 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
There has to be a balancing of rights, and it seems to me that a private property owner has the right to determine who or what comes on to his property.

Ok...for sake of discussion, let's change the object and Amendment in question from guns to, oh, let's say, Bibles or Rap/Hip-Hop CD's or the Radio Station you listen to while on company property. Let's say that the Company decides to ban Bibles in personal vehicles while parked in the company lot, or says you can't listen to a particular radio station while operating your vehicle on company property.

Do you support still support their private property rights in regards to regulating what you can have in your vehicle? What is the difference between the gun and the Bible in this scenario?

75 posted on 12/11/2004 8:03:19 AM PST by Hat-Trick (Do you trust a government that cannot trust you with guns?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
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.

Mr. Wilt is correct. However,

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.

How in the heck does the property owner have the right to search your car???

5.56mm

76 posted on 12/11/2004 8:08:58 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
"As for those that are going to post about "private property" here, I suspect that they would be the first in line to applaud the state kicking down my door for playing my music too loud or not paying my taxes on my "private property".

The issue is not about nuisance laws and taxation of property, the issue is about government granting the exertion of individual rights on private property.

Contrary to what many people believe, the U.S. Constitution and State Constitution's have no jurisdiction on private property. And just because a business is owned by more than one person, stockholders, for example, does not make the private property "public" property. Public property is owned by the taxpayers.

If constitutions had jurisdiction on private property, then you, as a private property owner, homeowner for example, would have to allow anyone into your house, carrying a gun. (Amendments 14 and 2.)

The constitutions limit and constrict the actions and powers of government.

Government is restricted from implementing anti-discrimination laws against a private property owner by Amendment IX. The private property owner will decide who is hired, fired, served, and how much is paid.

Government is restricted from taking your property without just compensation by Amendment V. Wal-Mart is not going to get my property because of the unconstitutional use of eminent domain without just compensation for my property.

Government is restricted from ordering what a newspaper or blogger can print or say by Amendment I.

Government is restricted from searching and seizing airline passenger's property by Amendment IV. Only the private property owner, the airline, can search and seize property they do not want on their property. <> Granted too many citizens allow for these government intrusions and constitutional violations, but the original meaning, intent, and jurisdiction of constitution's are still valid.

77 posted on 12/11/2004 8:11:08 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
I hope that any other FreeRepublic member, who reads this profile, will contact me, to join with me, to exert our "rights," God-given, inalienable rights, enumerated in the the 5th and 9th amendments. 5th amendment:"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." 9th amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." These two amendments are the "check and balance" to the "commerce clause," Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, ("to regulate commerce among the states...") that the U.S. Congress' uses to exert jurisdiction over sovereign citizens of the 50 states.

You should listen to yourself more. This is from your profile here on FR but the emphasis is mine.

78 posted on 12/11/2004 8:20:43 AM PST by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: secondamendmentkid
"Unless you live in a mansion, your guests will park on the street"

Many people who live in ordinary homes do have driveways. You don't need a mansion to have one.

79 posted on 12/11/2004 8:20:48 AM PST by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Hat-Trick
"What is the difference between the gun and the Bible in this scenario?"

There is a threshold of reasonableness, if I can use those terms. It's intellectually dishonest to say that a gun is exactly the same as a book or a flag, because we all know that it isn't.

For example, some companies, such as machine shops, forbid the wearing of jewelry because it poses a safety hazard. They can then forbid the wearing of a necklace. If that necklace happens to have a crucifix on it then someone can argue that the company is violating their 1st Amendment rights of freedom of religion. It's probably been tried. We have to inject a modicum of reasonableness and common sense in to the argument and not come up with extreme examples to try to prove the point.

80 posted on 12/11/2004 8:25:36 AM PST by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 841-856 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson