Court Allows Oklahoma Workers to Have Guns in Vehicles

The Oklahoman ^ | February 19, 2009 | ROBERT E. BOCZKIEWICZ

[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.

[taxcontrol]

My car is NOT my employer’s property. He has NO RIGHT to:
- open or enter my car
- search himself
- remove any articles inside
- approve law enforcement to open, enter, or search

[CottonBall]

That's not the point. I own the business, I pay your salary, I have the right to make work rules no matter how ridiculous they may seem.

Does 'work' include the time the person spends parking or getting into their vehicle? Seems to be they're not on the clock then.

[CottonBall]

And your tires are on my property and so if you want to keep your job, then you had better find an off-premises parking space.

Didn't the court in this article find otherwise? Assuming you are in Oklahoma, that is.

[pattty]

Dugg!

[Shooter 2.5]

And I suppose everyone who deals with you has the right to fire you.

Try offloading a semitrailer off your property and parked on the street. Maybe that truckdriver couldn’t find a parking place closer than a block away.

It works both ways. If you want to make it more difficult for your employees to work for a living, maybe they will find a way to make it difficult for you to make a profit.

[calex59]

The only idiot I can see it you. If you think you can regulate what people have in their cars, you are a total idot. Your property rights don't extend to others, don't extend to other peoples cars and what they have in them or what they can say while in the cars, whether parked on your property or anywhere.

The only idiot is one who thinks that property rights only pertain to an employer and not to the employee.

Once again, f*** you and the horse you rode in on, don't bother answering this comment because I really don't care what you have to say. You are plainly and control freak who thinks that their rights extend to the point of denying any rights to those who work for you.

You are flying in the face of laws passed by most states that say that an employees car is their home an castle. So, once again, F*** Off, and I hope you have a terrible day!

[McChordwatcher]

You are correct. There is no free speech at work. There is no freedom of assembly. However, by legislation, OK has made gun possession in an automobile a “protected class.” I would think that most conservatives would run away from this distinction, but obviously not.

And those who continue to disagree with you have no concept of what being an “employer” construes. I fire folks for bad attitudes at least a few times a year. Someday those who are so wedded to idea that the 2nd Amendment trumps all will see laws that protect “speech” on company property, etc... and maybe, just maybe, they will understand what you are trying to say. I wonder if these same folks would object to a union organizer having the legal “right” to be in your parking lot (freedom of association).

[supercat]

We had this little debate a couple of weeks ago. My position as the business owner is to create a safe work environment. If I say guns are not allowed, that absolves me of all liability if you desire to bring a weapon and leave it locked in your vehicle.

If you don't have any rules forbidding firearms locked in cars, why would you have any liability in that scenario in the first place?

I would think that a rule forbidding firearms from vehicles should increase liability in (at least) two ways:

1. The imposition of a rule may imply a duty to enforce it, especially in scenarios where someone who complies with the rule would be placed at a disadvantage compared to someone who does not. If an employer wants to search every car every time it enters the parking lot, fine. Otherwise, it would open itself up to liability for failing to stop someone from violating it.
2. If any harm befalls someone as a foreseeable consequence of compliance with a rule, the company should be held liable unless it can demonstrate that the rule was safer than any alternative.

Maybe liability laws need to be tweaked to make things more obvious, but given that disarming honest people makes them less safe, there's no reason it should reduce liability.

[westmichman]

I do prohibit smoking, the consumption of alcohol, sexual activity, nepotism, and intra-office romance. My business, my rules.)

Let’s compare apples to apples. Would you then ban these same people from having their cigarettes in their car so they can smoke when they leave? Would you say they cannot have legal booze in their trunk when it is in your parking lot? Would you make them leave their sex organs at home?
Just because someone has a legal device in their vehicle, legally locked and in a case and unloaded, does not seem to me to be against any law as long as they are not felons or breaking some other law.

[Squantos]

Unless........:o)

[loboinok]

Marked for an entertaining read.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The mobile home owner has nowhere near the rights and responsibilities of a land owner."

I think you will find that for purposes of this discussion, the INTERIOR of the modile home is just as much a "castle" as any permanent structure.

[Wonder Warthog]

"OK, and i have the right to fire you for any reason or no reason at all."

True in some states, not true in others.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The argument that I as a business owner should not have the right to regulate what my employes do in their motor vehicle while on my property is laughable. Why stop with firearms? How about sex? Do my employees have the right to have sex in their cars in my parking lot during the lunch break? Do they have the right to sleep in their cars overnight in my parking lot? Do they have the right to put signs on the inside their cars insulting me, my family, or Ronald Reagan? Do they have the right to post signs on the inside of their cars promoting abortion? I think not.

And I would say "yes" to all of the above. The vehicle is NOT your property in any way. Spse, for instance, a guy drives his motor home to work. If he wants to have sex there, on his own time, it's simply NOYB.

[philman_36]

Not only that, but the interior of my vehicle is a little bubble of my private property that I can move around with me.

Now extend that thinking to traffic stops and searching an automobile. Wouldn't a warrant be necessary to search a vehicle since it is private property? If a traffic stop is for speeding then does that automatically give the officer the right power to search a person's auto? Shouldn't the driver simply be cited for the offense for which they've been stopped and then released? (always ask the officer why you have been stopped!)

Now, I'll concede that if an officer smells alcohol on the driver's breath while talking to them, if the driver acts and /or responds in a deceptive manner or a Cheech and Chong style fog of marijuana smoke comes out of the vehicle when the window is rolled down, they then have probable cause to search a vehicle, so let nobody say I'm being unreasonable or "against" law enforcement. If there is probable cause then there are inherent powers. If a man has long hair he shouldn't automatically become a druggie, nor if the driver is a black man should he automatically be a thief in the eyes of the officer. And an automatic power to search the auto just because the officer doesn't like the look of a man is simply wrong.

And there is also the random checkpoint aspect where drivers are being stopped, questioned and their vehicles are searched for no reason whatsoever other than they happen to be on the road where the checkpoint has been established. It seems to me that the checkpoints are little more than fishing expeditions. Drivers do nothing wrong yet they are subject to questioning and having their private property searched, all without suspicion, probable cause or, most importantly, a warrant.

[AnAmericanMother]

But it's not an infringement if you voluntarily agree to it.

Like noncompete agreements, the employer can make the barring of firearms in the workplace a condition of employment. You don't want to agree to that, you don't have to work there.

All rights may be waived by the individual.

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, the law is actually nowhere near as bad as you think. Messy, complicated, but not that bad.

The checkpoints are only allowed to check for driver's licenses, valid tags, and insurance cards. The police can NOT search your car without probable cause - while the cloud of dope smoke will net you an immediate arrest and search incident to arrest, for the alcohol they have to get you out and run the field sobriety tests and the alco-sensor and arrest you. And they can't do an impound search on your car unless there's nobody who can drive it home.

Otherwise, they can question you if they have an 'articulable suspicion' - called a "Terry stop" after Terry v. Ohio. The questioning must develop probable cause, or they must ask for and receive permission to search.

As for a speeding stop, once the officer has written the ticket and checked the radio for outstanding warrants, he may not 'unreasonably prolong' the stop to ask intrusive questions about other matters, to wait for a drug-sniffing dog, etc.

[FlyingEagle]

You are making a spectacle of yourself. Simple fact is no one can deny a citizen constitutionally protected rights to bear arms. At-will employment, quitting, being fired, etc are extraneous issues.

[Pistolshot]

Here's the problem...and you identify it clearly.

If an employer wants to search every car every time it enters the parking lot, fine.

One, I can't do this.
Two, how would I know what you have in the privacy of your vehicle?

The liability comes into play if something happens while you are on the business property and act improperly to violate the rule. As long as it is locked in your car, it's not an issue. Once it leaves that sanctity, is another matter. The hope is you are responsible.

It all boils down to costs for insurance to keep the business alive. Not having a rule like this increases the premium to an outlandish sum. Look how many companies have this kind of requirement for hiring. the problem they have enforcing it, is invasion of private property.

And try saying you have a right to privacy on a military post as a civilian. See how that works.

I ran a private- no walkin gunsmithing business out of my garage. My premium was higher than the gross I made each month. That was a 60 hour + week. When I ended the business, my insurance was cut in half.

[glock rocks]

A workplace is private property and if the owner doesn’t want guns on their private property then they have every right to ban them. Don’t like it, leave the gun home or find a new job.

My car is my private property.

You might find this interesting reading. I think it will pass the Utah legislature next week. The Oklahoma precedent in the 10th circus will be a bonus. Out here, we hold the principle that if a place is open to the public, it is natural to assume that the public good is supported by the rights acknowledged in the state and federal constitution regarding the bearing of arms. Our teachers can legally carry arms. The mall can't prohibit concealed carry. I don't think you'd be happy here.

Maybe we live in the past... Dunno, but leaving your piece in your car while in work in an unsecured lot, private or not, certainly has no bearing on what happens in the working place. Hey, we even carry the castle doctrine to our cars... yes, lethal force is allowed in defense of attempted carjacking. Damn, next thing ya know, it'll be the wild west with blood running in the streets or (insert any other grabber-appropriate screed here)!