Dear jonestown,
"You are required to be 'reasonable' because in our Constitutional Republic you are obligated to obey our basic rule of law."
Nope. Only coercive governments insist that you must observe their version of what is "reasonable" on your own property.
As long as I am not extremely UNreasonable (I'm not burning down my house, to the extreme danger of my neighbors, I'm not setting off explosives, again, to the extreme danger of my neighbors, I'm not dumping raw sewage into the creek that runs through my yard, into my neighbor's yard), I shouldn't have to justify actions on my own property as being "reasonable" in your sight, the legislature's sight, the court's sight, or anyone else's.
It is this view that means I must act "reasonably" that has given us coercive environmental laws that forbid me from filling in a puddle on my property, or from cutting down dead trees without the county's permission.
It is this view that means I must act "reasonably" that has given the government all manner of unreasonable say in how I use my property, or regulate my business.
It is this view that means I must act "reasonably" if a disabled person applies for work at my company, forcing me to make all "reasonable" accommodations for them, even if I must initially spend tens of thousands of dollars to do it, and then thousands of dollars per year to maintain the accommodation.
It is this view that means I must act "reasonably" and be able to prove that I have not discriminated against minorities if I violate the EEOC's "Four Fifths" rule regarding disparate impact. It is this view that means I must act "reasonably" and not use any test of intelligence or skill that would create this disparate impact, unless I can prove in a court of law that my test "reasonably" tests the actual required skills for the actual position.
"It is against the clear 'public policy' of the 2nd Amendment to unreasonably require your employees to strip their vehicle of arms before parking in the lot provided them.
"The Oklahoma Legislature agreed."
I believe it is within the authority of the Oklahoma legislature to have passed this law.
But that means that without it, companies were legally entitled to prevent folks from having guns in their cars, on company grounds.
And I would prefer that legislatures spend less time telling property owners and business owners how to regulate their property and run their businesses.
I think that is a conservative position.
sitetest