Skip to comments.
Okla. Law Allows Guns on Company Property
fox ^
| 11-14-04
Posted on 11/14/2004 4:58:38 PM PST by LouAvul
TULSA, Okla. In Oklahoma, "Take Your Gun to Work Day" could be every day but some employers are trying to change that.
Whirlpool Corp. (WHR) has sued to block a new law that allows employees to keep guns in their locked vehicles on workplace parking lots. The law was scheduled to take effect Nov. 1, according to the Associated Press, but a federal judge blocked it. Only Kentucky has a similar law.
Whirlpool, which is trying to save its ban on firearms (search) on company property, believes workplace safety should override the rights of gun owners.
"This is a standard company rule that's intended to protect employees ... and to minimize the risk of any incident occurring," Whirlpool said in a statement to FOX News.
Tulsa police are similarly concerned about the prospect of violence in the workplace.
.......snip..........
State Rep. Jerry Ellis (search), a Democrat, believes that keeping guns off employer property won't prevent workplace violence.
"People that are going to do violence in the workplace ... it doesn't make any difference how many laws that you have on the books. They have no respect for the law and they're going to do it anyway," Ellis told FOX News.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Kentucky; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 next last
To: LouAvul
Xerxes should have listened, no? Indeed. Of course, things didn't go to well for Leonidas either :)
41
posted on
11/14/2004 7:40:02 PM PST
by
timm22
To: timm22
You are not conservative, and I wonder why you hang out on this site.
Bored on DU?
42
posted on
11/14/2004 8:06:38 PM PST
by
sarasmom
(McCarthy has been vindicated. When will Carter be villified?)
To: timm22
The fact that the government does not respect private property (by regulating parking lots in other ways) does not mean that parking lots are public property
I certainly understand (and agree) with your complaints about the government and private property. If I lived in Oregon I would have revolted by now.
The parking lot as psuedo-public property stems from the property owners choice to open the property to the general public--think of a supermarket parking lot. Police can enforce the same laws in the parking lot that they can on sidewalks or streets but can't on your front porch. I certainly don't think a supermarket should be able to refuse you access because you had an unseen and otherwise perfectly legal item in your trunk. Should an employer be able to refuse to let you park in his lot if you drive an SUV or a motorcycle? Does he give up this right of refusal when he grants employee parking?
I don't know how, if at all, this "public treatment" applies when the property is only opened to the limited public such as only your employees. My guess is it varies greatly from State to State.
I'm uncomfortable with anyone telling me what I'm allowed to have in my personal vehicle. Especially in this case because, if I read this correctly, they don't want employees parking on public property to be allowed to have guns in their cars either.
43
posted on
11/14/2004 8:08:55 PM PST
by
Ragnorak
To: Nathaniel Fischer
Ever hear of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? I have no problem with anyone on my property with a firearm. If they take aim at my wife or children, then I will respond. The concept is very simple. As a seventh generation American, many of my forebearers settled this land. We are not afraid of defending ourselves. If you like ther 911 factor, then that's your choice when you are bleeding to death, waiting for the EMS to stop by.
Cheers pal.
BTW, ask the United States Marines what they think of your's and timm22's attitude.
pathetic...
44
posted on
11/14/2004 8:29:36 PM PST
by
Cobra64
(Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
To: LouAvul
Try taking a gun to work at PSO. (Public Service Co of Oklahoma).
The parent company AEP (American Electric Power) absolutly forbids guns and knives.
Comment #46 Removed by Moderator
To: Nathaniel Fischer
All it takes is one nut job to start the gunfight at
Matag corral over a lunchroom spat and the anti gun
movement will have our ass and the lawyers will have
Matag's ass.
47
posted on
11/14/2004 10:05:33 PM PST
by
DaveTesla
(You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
To: DanGalt
In SC we have shall issue laws, and folks I have worked for have tried to say that we cannot carry guns in our cars.
I say if no one knows what is the issue.That is the "what you don't know doesn't hurt me" principle, which I swear by. Especially when it comes to the gummint.
48
posted on
11/14/2004 10:40:35 PM PST
by
ApplegateRanch
(The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
To: timm22
"So I guess I have the right to park my property on your front yard and camp out there overnight, just so long as I don't step off of my property and onto yours?" Re-read what I said. The INTERIOR of the vehicle is private property. You certainly have the say as to where the EXTERIOR sits.
Go learn some topology.
To: Wonder Warthog
Re-read what I said. The INTERIOR of the vehicle is private property. You certainly have the say as to where the EXTERIOR sits. Then if I do not like what you have in the interior of your vehicle, can I not simply state that the exterior is prohibited from my property?
50
posted on
11/15/2004 11:09:00 AM PST
by
timm22
To: sarasmom
You are not conservative, and I wonder why you hang out on this site. Bored on DU? So now taking a position in defense of property rights is not conservative?
A classical liberal, by the way, was someone who supported limited government, free markets, and individual rights. Men like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, James Madison, and Milton Friedman were classical liberals.
51
posted on
11/15/2004 11:16:44 AM PST
by
timm22
To: Cobra64
Ever hear of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? Yes, it was designed to protect against state- not private-infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It does not apply to a private employer. Otherwise, I could just as easily say that an employer violated my First Amendment rights if they fired me for distributing extremist political literature at work or by preventing me from giving religious sermons to customers.
I have no problem with anyone on my property with a firearm.
I don't either. But I shouldn't get to make that decision for someone else on THEIR property.
52
posted on
11/15/2004 11:27:07 AM PST
by
timm22
To: jdege
"But if you do so, you should be required to provide secure storage for their firearms while they are on the premises."
Should employers also be forced to provide freezers for people who come to work with an ice cream cone, which they are not allowed to take into company premises?
To: timm22
It's interesting how easily property rights are thrown out of the window when they don't fit perfectly with the supposedly "conservative" agenda.
To: Truthsayer20
It's interesting how easily property rights are thrown out of the window when they don't fit perfectly with the supposedly "conservative" agenda. Unfortunately, I've seen it so often that it is no longer interesting, only terribly depressing.
55
posted on
11/15/2004 12:03:58 PM PST
by
timm22
To: Truthsayer20
Should employers also be forced to provide freezers for people who come to work with an ice cream cone, which they are not allowed to take into company premises?
Employees don't have a fundamental right to bear ice cream cones, and the lack of an ice cream cone during travel to and from work isn't life threatening.
56
posted on
11/15/2004 12:06:09 PM PST
by
jdege
To: jdege
"Employees don't have a fundamental right to bear ice cream cones, and the lack of an ice cream cone during travel to and from work isn't life threatening."
The 2nd, or any other, amendment does not trump private property rights. It's a restriction against government power. I would be fired on the spot if I would start to publicly advocate for boycotts against my company (i.e., the 1st amendment does not give me the "right" to not to suffer in my private contractual arrangements due to my public statements).
To: timm22
"Then if I do not like what you have in the interior of your vehicle, can I not simply state that the exterior is prohibited from my property?" How will you know?? And no, you do not have a "right to know". That is what "concealed carry" is all about.
To: jdege
Employees don't have a fundamental right to bear ice cream cones, and the lack of an ice cream cone during travel to and from work isn't life threatening. Neither do employees have a fundamental right to stay employed against their employer's wishes.
59
posted on
11/15/2004 7:25:15 PM PST
by
timm22
To: timm22
I don't either. But I shouldn't get to make that decision for someone else on THEIR property.Well Pilgram, based on your logic, if you show up on my property, then I have the tight to drop you.
You libs are beyond belief. BTW, have you ever smelled spent gunpowder or Hoppe's No.9? Do you know the difference between a muzzle and a breach? Can you discern the difference of a pistol, revolver, rifle, carbine, shotgun, tank, airplane, jet, helicopter, fixed-wing vs. rotary? Gunship helo, support operations?
60
posted on
11/15/2004 8:28:27 PM PST
by
Cobra64
(Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-73 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson