Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules

The Tulsa World ^ | Oct. 7, 2007 | David Harper

[2Am4Sure]

A Tulsa federal judge has ruled against the state in its attempt to make sure employees can take guns onto their employers' property.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.

Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.

Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."

[Beagle8U]

So your argument is that anything an employer wished to require of his employees would be OK?

Regardless of of the Constitution or bill of rights?

[dpa5923]

They both apply at work.

Neither the first nor the 2nd sheild citizens from the consequences of their actions however.

If, as an employer, I do not want you saying X, Y, or Z at work, you still have the right to say X, Y, and Z. I also have the right to fire you. If I, as the employer, do not want you to bring weapons or hotdogs to work, you still have the right to bring them. I also have the right to fire you.

Neither the first nor second amendments force me, as an employer, to give you a job and keep you employed if you refuse to follow the requirements of the job or expectations while on the job.

[William Terrell]

interestingly, neither the First nor Second Amendments apply at the workplace.

Ah, but does the right to possess firearms exist off the workplace? Or did our little judge address that.

[robertpaulsen]

"Kern concluded that the proposed changes to Oklahoma law conflict with -- and are legally pre-empted by -- the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act."

By that, I'm guessing that they're saying the presence of guns in employees cars pose an occupational hazard to the employees. Well, I suppose that's possible, sure.

But if a study comes out demonstrating that guns in employee's cars actually reduce violence, injury, and death in the workplace, wouldn't it then be an OSHA requirement to have a gun? You know, like OSHA requires a back brace to reduce back injury if you're going to lift over X pounds?

Using OSHA as the justification for this law could have interesting and unintended consequences.

[goodnesswins]

YES....my husband’s employer provides a disaster “pack” and case of water for each cubicle......but, has a NO GUNS policy......

[ridesthemiles]

If you disarm me as a condition of employment, then you as my employer are now responsible for my security.
If you fail in this, and someone ignores all your idiotic little plastic signs and goes on a shooting spree on your now disarmed campus... I’ll sue your butt back to the Stone Age.”

I think you summed it up very well.

[KenHorse]

<>Iinterestingly, neither the First nor Second Amendments apply at the workplace.

While I might agree with you about the 2nd here (although I would probably argue that the rights of the private property owner need to be taken into account here too), I don't see how the 1st is being violated in any way, shape or form.

The 1st says "Congress shall make no law". How does a private employer fit in here?

[CRBDeuce]

Simple solution: Never buy your gasoline at a Conoco Phillips gas station, especially at night! The liberal judge just put all the states gas station attendants and convenience store attendants on death watch. Another case of ‘the slippery slope’ to a world where only criminals have guns (oh, and the guy at the other end of 911 who MIGHT show up shortly after your death at the hands of said criminal).

[Beagle8U]

Yes, Its common in the medical profession to push the anti-gun message.

They often stick the “Any guns in your Home?” question in the new patient medical questions form.

They by the printed forms and many Doctors that support gun rights forget to cross out that question.

[cowtowney]

“interestingly, neither the First nor Second Amendments apply at the workplace.”

interesting, the Tenth Amendment leaves it up to the states

[Idaho Whacko]

What we need to do is be “anti-ACLU”. We need someone subject to such rules, who did not have a gun in their car as they usually would, who was robbed or attacked on the way home, TO SUE. Since companies want to tell you not to have guns in your car in the company parking lot, then they are responsible for your safety going to and from work.

[KenHorse]

They often stick the “Any guns in your Home?” question in the new patient medical questions form.

I either leave it blank or (on more than one occasion), have responded "none of your business"

Interestly, I've never had a doctor question me about my response

[robertpaulsen]

Federal law (OSHA) says that employers must provide a safe working environment for their employees. All we need are a few studies showing that the presence of employee arms makes the working environment safer.

The ironic result would be that it would then be a federal requirement to carry a gun. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

[BearCub]

Also, just as parents have the moral/legal obligation to protect their families, shouldn’t a private company that forbids legal weapons have the same obligation to protect those that enter?

If I'm ever mugged on my way to/from work, my employer is #1 on the lawsuit list. I drive through a pretty lousy part of town twice a day. I'm unarmed because of my employer's policy.

[Idaho Whacko]

We still have laws protecting the rights of employees, why not the right to not be disarmed? The excesses of the Rockefellers et al are why we have so many labor laws today.

[TLI]

Eh... I've tried to use the reasoning on here before.

Heard that. Here in Texas it would be virtually imposable for an employer to search your car to the extent of requiring you to open a locked storage box that contained Safety Equipment. Especially if you do not tell ANYONE it is there. A locked storage box like this one.

Glock manufactures some very high quality Safety Equipment. Perhaps that would work in OK?

[Brilliant]

yeah, I agree. I was going to mention that, but decided on the suscinct reply.

[Beagle8U]

” They’ll come up with some specious reasoning that the Employer “owns” your car if it is parked in their parking lot. That your security to and from the job sight is none of the employers concern should you voluntarily disarm yourself.”

Anyone that thinks the employer owns the personal auto of another just because it is parked on their property should take this simple test....

Invite anyone to park on your private property and then have it towed away.

You will get sued.

[calex59]

Could you refuse to work for an employer who didn’t keep a gun in his home? Or would that be illegal? Could you refuse to work for an employer who DID keep a gun in his home? Or would THAT be illegal? I think it is perfectly legal to make that decision as an employee. Why, then, should an employer not be allowed to make the same decision? This also applies to smoking, drinking, bad language, playing frisbee or any other behavior. If it is important to either the employer or employee, each may base employment decisions on that issue. Freedom is a great thing when WE want to practice it, but sometimes less great when others want to do the same.

You can't be so stupid as to believe any empolyer has the right to tell employees what they can do in their own home, or on their own time, as a condition of employment. An employer can only put conditions and rules on the time they are paying you, so if they want to pay a person 24 hours a day(and I don't mean saleries, because that has already been argued and found wanting), I mean actually pay you for every minute of every day, THEN just maybe they could tell you what to do after office hours. The fact of the matter is, if they tried to tell you a condition of employment was to be unarmed at home as well as on the premises you would be legally obliged not to comply with the "at home" provision. The reason? Because you cannot voluntarily give up your rights under the constitution.

It isn't legal, although they are trying it at some work places, to tell you that you can't smoke on your on time let alone tell you that you are unable to excersize your constitutional rights on your own time.

Your argument about freedom is full of many holes, I suggest you read more about freedom and the responsibilities that go along with it.

[robertpaulsen]

"They often stick the “Any guns in your Home?” question in the new patient medical questions form."

Next time take a copy of this form with you. I keep a couple in the glove compartment.