Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules
The Tulsa World ^ | Oct. 7, 2007 | David Harper

Posted on 10/07/2007 7:54:27 AM PDT by 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."

(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; rkba; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 next last
To: NCLaw441
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?

21 posted on 10/07/2007 8:22:50 AM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

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.


22 posted on 10/07/2007 8:23:45 AM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
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.

23 posted on 10/07/2007 8:24:18 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2Am4Sure
"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.

24 posted on 10/07/2007 8:24:41 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

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


25 posted on 10/07/2007 8:25:40 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Being Challenged Builds Character! Being Coddled Destroys Character!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

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.


26 posted on 10/07/2007 8:26:44 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
<>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?

27 posted on 10/07/2007 8:28:17 AM PDT by KenHorse (It may be the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2Am4Sure

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).


28 posted on 10/07/2007 8:28:36 AM PDT by CRBDeuce (an armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
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.

29 posted on 10/07/2007 8:29:06 AM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

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

interesting, the Tenth Amendment leaves it up to the states


30 posted on 10/07/2007 8:30:13 AM PDT by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

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.


31 posted on 10/07/2007 8:32:24 AM PDT by Idaho Whacko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
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

32 posted on 10/07/2007 8:32:47 AM PDT by KenHorse (It may be the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: calex59
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?

33 posted on 10/07/2007 8:33:33 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: elpinta
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.

34 posted on 10/07/2007 8:33:57 AM PDT by BearCub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

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.


35 posted on 10/07/2007 8:34:35 AM PDT by Idaho Whacko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
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?

36 posted on 10/07/2007 8:35:19 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: calex59

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


37 posted on 10/07/2007 8:36:43 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
” 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.

38 posted on 10/07/2007 8:38:18 AM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441
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.

39 posted on 10/07/2007 8:38:20 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
"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.

40 posted on 10/07/2007 8:43:06 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson