I brindle at such a pre-condition; you are really in Dutch.
And NO ACCORDIONS!
Accordion to whom?
Don't want to fold under pressure yaknow!
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.
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.
Here is what I found for "terry stop" and it doesn't quite sound like what you're saying it is...though I could be wrong.
Terry Stop Law & Legal Definition
A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense.
It seems to me that a "Terry stop" is predicated upon "reasonable suspicion", it can't be developed through questioning. The suspicious activity must be observed before the questioning begins.
Surely simply driving on the roads can't give law enforcement officers any reasonable suspicion that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, does it?
TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names.
And you seem to have a contradiction here...
The police can NOT search your car without probable cause... where you emphasize not, yet...
The questioning must develop probable cause, or they must ask for and receive permission to search.
...you say they must ask for permission to search.
Why do they have to ask for permission to search when you say they can't search without probable cause? If they have no probable cause to search your car why would they then ask to be allowed to do so?
When I went to school most everyone carried a shotgun to school in their car during Pheasant or Dove season so we could hunt when classes were out...or sooner
Why black out the license plate? I say expose these pieces of sh!t and then see how they like it.
Well, it’s a vehicle. You provide a place for your employees to park it. Still, it’s there vehicle, not yours. The law, in my not so humble opinion is being fair here. Your parking lot, their car. If you tore up the pavement and planted grass and trees, they couldn’t put their cards there, and now you don’t have to worry if their self protection is in those cars, as they cars aren’t there.
An airplane, filled with God knows what, flies over your land. What rights do you have to said airplane? What about a hoovering helicopter? A hot air balloon?
The land is yours, permanently. The cars are not yours. I’m sure no one is going to say otherwise. It’s neither a superior or inferior claim.
Don’t like the law? Unpave the parking lot and plant trees.
Agree .....
I suppose it would be okay for an employer to tell you that you couldn’t have a bible in your car, locked in the trunk. Or a radio, or a koran, or a candy bar, or beer, or peanut butter, or cell phone, or your insulin, or medication, or anything that they don’t think you should have. Just any old thing that they don’t want or like. No Jeeps, no potato chips, why not disallow seatbelts or airbags. Its their parking lot so who cares about safety.
Say what you will we're in a pretty good state compared to some...
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2009/02/18/97987.htm
1 million ?!?!?!? Wow !
Same here.
They originally endorsed Carson and when the GOP went into an uproar they pulled back and said both deserved the A rating. Only problem was that Carson was a phony. He used his old pickup with a gun rack only during elections. He was pro-second amendment when it counted for election. He even joked to a another Congressman about how he suckered Okies to thinking he was a hunter.
Complaints to the NRA fell on deaf ears. I was part of the Coburn campaign and why the GOA got support in OK that was given to the NRA before. When you can cancel an NRA membership to go to GOA you tend to remember it well. I was furious. Would NEVER support the NRA. When their lawyer is helping that lowlife Edmonson, the handwriting is on the wall.
I doubt that this particular bill will fly, but expect more that are a little more subtle.
I think the idea of private property open to the public is key here.
Can you open a restaurant and put out a ‘No Whites’ sign?
Well, you can. Hmmmm.
You’ll find there is a civil rights issue that will interfere with your bias based upon civil rights law, as it relates to private property in the public arena. Got wheelchair access?
Ya know, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right too. Perspective.
Now, if I don’t want whites on my ranch, by golly, I can do it. Black labs and asian babes only! And NO ACCORDIONS!
Best keep yer eyes on congress. It ain't gonna be subtle.
But if you were to make the rule that your employees could not have a gun in their car, would you then be willing to compensate their families on the loss of the breadwinner should a non-employee nutjob decide to shoot up your business, killing several of said employees?
Would you be willing to compensate the family on the loss of the breadwinner should they be attacked and killed by a career criminal when they stopped for gas on the way to work, unarmed due to your (hypothetical) anti firearm in the car policy?
You are the employer, but if you decide to become the nanny, then you must be willing to accept the responsibility of being the nanny.
MY dawgs are not happy, glock, with that statement.....
Their OWNER is not happy with the way her country is headed, and the idiots who are supporting this junk...
Oh man, I don’t know. What’ funny is the Rat governor fought so hard to get that favorable ruling.
Looky Here! and Here! ..... to see where this will lead us....
I'm VERY happy that Oklahoma is acting the way it should!!!!!!
I brindle at such a pre-condition; you are really in Dutch.
And NO ACCORDIONS!
Accordion to whom?
Don't want to fold under pressure yaknow!
I think it will be something they “think” will fly under the radar. This could be a diversion.
The law, in my not so humble opinion is being fair here.
Now, if I run a place of business with a parking lot, do I want the cost for the maintenance of additional private security to demonstrate to a potential court that I took measures to protect the unarmed from an armed nutjob?
No.
Do I want the cost of liability for not having broken up an armed dispute on my property?
No.
Do I want the deep-pocket liability for secondary damages caused by stolen weapons taken from a parked car on my lot?
No.
Do I want the cost of adding additional fencing, etc. to preclude such an event? What if I'm just a mom and pop shop?
Now, mind you, these few I just dreamed up in a couple of minutes. The point is, there are issues in this tension between a private landowner and the owner of a weapon desiring to leave it in his car. Frankly, as a business owner, I'd feel safer if he carried it into the building and checked it at the door. Wouldn't you? But then, how would you feel handing a loaded weapon to a guy you just fired?
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.