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.
====
Mr. Keller sounds like a clueless anti-gunner.
I think private property rights have to come first. The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.
The issue is not 2nd ammendment rights but property rights....The man was not arrested, he was fired. He knew the rules of employment and was on the company property.
That stated, try this scenario.....
If the gentleman was to stand in the company parking lot and complain bitterly and loudly about the company, it's management and policies would he expect to be fired or would he claim it's his 1st ammendment rights?
Try this at your employer and see if you make it till Christmas....
This is not any different for 2nd Ammendment rights....Next time, he should try to park at the curb...
NeverGore :^)
Only a liberal would find this surprising.
But in Oklahoma, as across much of rural America, gun control is seen as the work of naive and meddling minds.
A naive and meddling mind - somebody like, say, a liberal?
In recent years companies have been implementing anti-gun policies in an attempt to cut down on violence at the work place.
At least the author made the agenda clear in this sentence.
Now they fear the Oklahoman ruling will encourage the powerful gun lobby all over America to try to roll back the reforms.
Gun control is never about repressing our rights. It's always about the holy, righteous, lofty goal of "reform".
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.
And I'm sure, if you dig into the statistics, that the real story is that he's counting cops, security guards, EMT's, convenience store clerks and other high risk occupations. Nice try, but we won't be fooled by this bu!!$h!t any more.
BUMP
bump
This idiot really believes that by preventing sane, rational people from defending themselves, the insane and irrational will just quit and go home.
"Hey, I can't barge into that office and start shooting! Its a gun free work place and I'm not allowed to!"
Or
"Hey, I can't barge into that office and start shooting, someone might shoot me!"
Which office is safer, you imbecile?
If the kompany doesn't want weapons in his vehicle, they should 1) pay for his car, 2) pay for his driving time and expenses to and from work, and 3) guarantee his security at work, and while driving to and from work.
Korporate anti-gun policies are simply another assault on our individual Rights. Since the gov't is unable (at least today) to ban guns, they simply get so-called "private" companies to do it. Many of these same "private" kompanies are staffed with former fed bureacrats, and many others receive some sort of federal subsidy. So they are able to get away with enacting these anti-gun edicts.
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".
Note how similar the arguments of the gun-grabbing Brits sound to the statist bootlickers on the other thread.
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.
The law was passed, it is Constitutional, and yet a judge puts a restraining order preventing it from taking effect???? Under what authority can a judge do that?
The law should have established an employees right to privacy in his locked vehicle on private property, subject to a law enforcement search with a warrant.
So9
It is a Fourth Amendment issue.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What right does a company have to search private vehicles? Absent probably cause, not even the police have that right.
The English Media. Proudly not "getting it" since April 19th, 1775.
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
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
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.
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?