Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

Telegraph ^ | 11/12/04 | Alec Russell in Valliant and Scott Heiser in Washington

[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."

[paul51]

I'm as big a Second Amendment supporter as anyone, but private property rights have to take precedence

How do you feel about someone refusing to rent a property they own to someone based on their religion or the color of their skin?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.

I wonder how many of these murders occur at workplaces where it is illegal to have guns...

[Batrachian]

"How do you feel about someone refusing to rent a property they own to someone based on their religion or the color of their skin?"

An interesting point. Where do private property rights end? I would consider it immoral, however.

[Redcloak]

I would normally be inclined to support property rights; but, issues such as the ones you mention are causing me to side against property owners.

Following your example, I can understand a business owner telling employees that no Bible study will be allowed on company property. One can argue that this is foolish because it discourages virtue among employees, but there's an implicit right to be foolish. What I don't see is how such a policy can be logically extended into a ban on having a Bible one's vehicle for use on one's own time. Likewise, while an employer might ban firearms inside the workplace, that ought not morph into a ban on an employee having a firearm while traveling to and from work. (If you can't have the gun in your locked vehicle in the lot, then how do you have it while commuting?)

[paul51]

The courts have ruled. It's not open to an individuals interpretation of morality. It's illegal, property rights not with standing.

[Redcloak]

According to John Lott, a disproportionate number of these shootings occur in states where there is no right-to-carry.

[MarkL]

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.

I know that I feel so much safer when I walk into a business and see the big "No Guns" sign.

Knowing that a criminal will see the sign, and think, "Oh shucks! I can't bring my gun in here to rob the place... I had better find another store to rob!" gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling!

Mark

[paul51]

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

That's an extension of the same kind of rationale that says people don't need guns because the police will protect them. In the final analysis, an employer won't take any more responsibility to protect their employees than the police would take to protect the citizens. Neither of them should have the right to interfere with people who wish to exercise their right to protect themselves

[JudgemAll]

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.

Have the companies paid for the damages of their reckless or failing promises of custodies? If they have not, then they do not have a case. End of story.

This is a civil rights issue. Gun owners should not be discriminated, and the problem does not lay just in terms of workplace safety, but simply having guns at home can get you discriminated.

[JudgemAll]

That's an extension of the same kind of rationale that says people don't need guns because the police will protect them. In the final analysis, an employer won't take any more responsibility to protect their employees than the police would take to protect the citizens. Neither of them should have the right to interfere with people who wish to exercise their right to protect themselves

Exactly. it is a fraudulent pretense of custody and care, simply because they never pay when violence occurs at the workplace. In fact some managers love some form of mutual hatred and distrust at the workplace in order to rule.

Who pays for getting hurt should have primary care over not getting hurt in the first place. Others can stuff it.

[Hat-Trick]

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.

In my example, the gun is the same as a book or a flag, only the constitutional right has changed. It seems that you have a problem with the object (gun).

For example, some companies, such as machine shops, forbid the wearing of jewelry because it poses a safety hazard.

Go back to the contents of a vehicle on company property, and don't extend the issue onto the shop floor.

[paul51]

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

There is no right protected by the constitution to keep and bear jewelry and no religion I know of requires someone to wear a necklace with a crucifix.

[JasonC]

The car is the man's property as much as the parking lot is the company's. If my boss told me he wanted to search my car everyday and to forbid me to have this or that in it on the basis that he pays for the parking lot, I'd tell him to take a flying leap and find a new boss.

[nuke rocketeer]

Their arguments about banning guns from vehicles in the workplace parking lot are specious. Someone who's going postal is really going to pay attention to company rules about guns in the workplace. If I remember right, it's against the law to bring a gun into a bar, but has that stopped barroom shootings?

[PoorMuttly]

"You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser,"

I'm sure that is true for everyone who lives in the factory....well....kinda sure, anyway.

[Batrachian]

"If my boss told me he wanted to search my car everyday and to forbid me to have this or that in it on the basis that he pays for the parking lot, I'd tell him to take a flying leap and find a new boss."

That is exactly my point. You have the right to work somewhere else if the terms and conditions of that job don't suit you, and your boss has the right to dictate what can be brought on to his property. You can't tell him how to use his property and he can't tell you where to work or what to do on your own time.

[mad_as_he$$]

What kind of idiot let's the company search his car?

What about those who do start shooting at the workplace THEY could be the only armed person - bad news to me. At Columbine the ONLY guy - a Deputy Sheriff - who had a chance to stop it fired of a coupla rounds and then "went for help".

Can't count on the company, the cops, or anybody else but your self.

[jonestown]

I think all of our rights are co-equal.

Your right to ban carrying guns on your property does not extend to banning your employees right to carry a gun to & from work, as long as he secures it while at work in his private property, - his vehicle.

[JasonC]

And if he has half a brain (which in point of fact, he does, and would never do something like this), he knows better than to try to dictate to me about my property (including my car and its contents) - just as I do not dictate to him about his. These paternalistic employers are idiots treating their employees as peons and pretending the employer owns the employees' cars and private effects, which they do not.

[jonestown]

You have no inherent right to park this employer's parking lot. The owner is entitled to make his/her own rules, --
30 Melas

---

Most larger companies are required by local gov permits to provide company parking, and employees are required to use that parking rather than public spaces.


Our governments are charged by the constitution to defend our right to bear arms...not only in the public square, but wherever it is being unreasonably restricted.

Employees that are required to park their private property [vehicles] in company lots while working, cannot be reasonably compelled to give up their right to lock private property [guns] in those vehicles.