Posted on 02/19/2009 10:11:28 AM PST by cashion
ATTORNEY GENERAL USED AN NRA LAWYER TO ARGUE THE STATE’S POSITION
DENVER - An appeals court said Wednesday that Oklahoma’s law allowing employees to have guns at work in their locked vehicles is valid.
The Denver-based court’s decision overturns a ruling by U.S. District Judge Terence Kern in Tulsa, who barred enforcement of the law.
Gov. Brad Henry and Attorney General Drew Edmondson appealed Kern’s 2007 ruling.
"It was our opinion that the law is constitutional and the court agreed with us today,” Edmondson spokesman Charlie Price said. "We are thankful for the assistance of the National Rifle Association and its counsel — they provided great help.”
Starting with a 2004 lawsuit, several companies challenged the law, including Weyerhauser Corp.; Whirlpool Corp., which later dropped out; and more recently, ConocoPhillips.
"The safety of our employees is a top priority of ConocoPhillips and we are disappointed with today’s decision,” said company spokesman Rich Johnson, adding that the company has not determined whether to appeal.
THE RULING
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided 3-0 that Kern erred in concluding the law is pre-empted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Kern said gun-related workplace violence was a "recognized hazard” under the act and the state law interfered with employers’ ability to comply with the act.
"We disagree,” the appellate judges in Denver wrote. "OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not to adopt a standard (banning firearms from the workplace).”
The appellate judges said Kern’s ruling "interferes with Oklahoma’s police powers and essentially promulgates a court-made safety standard. ... Such action is beyond the province of federal courts.”
Edmondson, in an unusual step, had an attorney for the rifle association instead one of his own lawyers argue the case at the appeals court. The court had allowed the NRA to submit arguments as a "friend of the court.”
The court allowed the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and several safety and business groups to submit arguments as friends of the court in support of Kern’s ruling.
THE LAW
The law, which allows nonfelons to lock legal guns in their vehicles while parked at work, was passed in two stages in 2004 and 2005.
The law was proposed by legislators after Weyerhauser reportedly fired eight workers who violated policy by having guns in their vehicles at a mill in southeastern Oklahoma.
Was waiting for a fellow Oklahoman to chime in on this. No way this is anything but political even though it is a good ruling. Anyone who thinks Edmonson is anything but a liberal, needs to think again. If the NRA endorses Edmonson over this instead of perhaps Mary Fallin, I may start a one person protest to get people to quit the NRA and got to GOA. That happened a lot in 2004 when the NRA first endorsed only CARSON, the RAT!
Don’t know who runs the NRA but they are not high on my list.
Yes, you have the right to swear in your car while parked on my property. And the really great part is that I have the right to fire your ass on the spot. And you could sue me in any state in the country and you would lose. BTW, do you have the right to have sex in your car while parked on my lot? How about sleeping in your car overnight?
On the other hand, most states consider the car to be an extension of the home. For its own benefit (less tardiness, absenteeism), the employer has erected a parking lot, inviting its employees to drive from home in their cars thus bringing that extension of home to the worksite.
If the employer is not willing to accept all the ramifications of that decision, they can close the parking lots and make employees find somewhere else to park their cars.
You don’t have the right to fire me for swearing in my car. If I am on your property, in other words out of my car, you can fire me. My car is NOT your property but mine and an extension of my home as upheld by most states. Fire me for swearing in my car or for having a gun in my car and you will be sued. You sure the hell are not a conservative if you think that your property rights extend into mine. You are nothing but a petty dictator masquerading as a conservative. So f*** you and the horse you rode in on. I almost wish I worked for you so I can test you on this shit and see which one of us won out in court. I know I would win, you would be shit out of luck. Dumb ass.
Amazing how a judge must say “okay” for people to exercise their God-given rights.
You are confusing rights and powers.
You are describing powers. The State can take those away from you if it sees fit.
The NRA endorsed neither Carson nor Coburn in the 2004 Senate race as they both had "A" ratings. Carson pretended that the NRA somehow endorsed him, but this was not the case.
That means that an employee can quit at anytime and for any reason or for no reason and an employer can fire an employee at any time for any reason or for no reason at all, provided the reason is not otherwise illegal, such as the employee's race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, disability, and in some states, sexual orientation, and now in Oklahoma, the possession of a firearm. What that means is that in just about every state, I can fire an at-will employee because I don't like the color of the car they drive, the make of the car they drive, the color of their hair, the size of their ass, the size of their brain, what they eat for lunch, or the weather. I can fire them because they swore at me to my face, while they were parked in their car on my lot, or simply because I heard a rumor that they may have swore at me while sitting on a beach ten thousand miles a way. I can fire them because they use foul language or don't use foul language or because they smoke or don't smoke or because they drink or don't drink. In nearly every state, I can also fire them because they possess a firearm on their person or in their car while on my property. In fact, I can fire them because they refuse to possess or carry a firearm. The best part is that I can fire them just because I feel like firing them.
My car isn’t company property.
Since you wish to enforce your property rights on my vehicle, if police dogs find drugs in my vehicle while it is on your property, according to your policies - those are YOUR drugs!
Oh wait, at that point, I am sure you are no longer worried about YOUR property because that is MY car!
OTOH, my car is my property and is often considered an extension of my home. Nobody has a right to search my car without my consent except by a warrant or by probable cause. Therefore, if I legally have a gun in my car and I lock it up when I park it, my employer has no cause to know whether or not there is a gun in my car and thus has no cause for enforcing a “no guns” policy on my car.
The company has every right to prohibit me from bringing my gun with me into the workplace, but the inside of my locked vehicle is not the workplace. My employer should not be able to prohibit me from having my legally carried firearm in my vehicle to and from work just because I have to park my vehicle on the company parking lot.
“OK, and i have the right to fire you for any reason or no reason at all.”
True, but if you do not have a VALID reason, then I can still get unemployment benefits and I can sue you for WRONGFUL termination. See, you actually DO have to have a reason to terminate someone.
No offense, but if you think that way, you’re nuts.
So you can't fire me for being a black, Persian, Muslim, homosexual male that is 70 years old with a bad back and you worry about a weapon in my trunk.
Your priorities are interesting......
I am very glad I don’t work for you.
Actually, no. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The First Amendment applies only to Congress. The Second Amendment applies to Congress, the courts, the Executive, the several States, localities, and private properties. A private property owner has no more right to tell you to be unarmed than he would to require you arrive at the property line naked. I'd make exception for naturist resorts private areas, but not even that. The right to keep and bear arms = the right to life. It is not negotiable.
I'm not trying to join the debate here, but one could make the argument that the company's property rights trump your free speech rights if you agree to waive them in exchange for monetary compensation.
Just as you might sign a non-disclosure agreement, I would say it's not terribly unreasonable for a company to have such a gun restriction IF they clearly make that a condition of employment...they may not get the best talent if that turns off some gunowners.
I do agree that a vehicle is personal property and an exension of the home (as many states acknowledge).
Also, if a company wants to impose gun restrictions, they should grandfather in those who are already employed there. On second thought, I don't know how you would handle that.
It's an interesting rights-debate, that's for sure!
Ping to this story.
Ok, I’ve GOT to move there! Do you have any gas turbine power plants?
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.