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.
I gotta get me a ranch!
I agree with the ruling - however, exactly how does a firearm inside a locked vehicle parked in a parking lot help keep anyone safer? This does not lend well to stopping a deranged individual bent on committing a shooting spree in a workplace.
If not, your input is most welcome.
Thanks for the ping!
The Utah law does address some of the issue of liability for the owner of stolen weapons as long as they were properly stored. It does not protect the owner of the lot for having failed to preclude the theft. I don't know how they are going to specify what constitutes proper storage without playing favorites; that looks like a regulatory black hole.
The UT law distinguishes parking lots with security measures from those that do not (interesting additional considerations there), if I read it correctly, by allowing the guy with a fence to ban the weapons presumably because he's protecting life and limb by other means (interesting equal protection consideration there given that the government permits or denies what constitutes an adequate fence in the first place for the purposes of the statute (another black hole)).
From what I can tell, there is nothing in the UT law that addresses the liability of the lot owner for secondary damages due to stolen weapons, or for having failed to verify that they are properly stored in the car. Those liability protections are only extended to the gun owner.
I know that sounds kinda extreme as a case, but remember, I live in California. In this state, if a guy goes on a roof to break into your building and falls through a skylight while trying to break it in order to gain entry, the building owner is liable for not having built an unbreakable skylight, despite the fact that it was built to standards set by that same government.
If the parking is considered to be "secure" i.e. with fence and guards, a citizen is not allowed to keep a gun in his car, and must submit it to secure storage at the liability and responsibility of the secure lot owner. I believe case law will in support the reasonable goal of this statute. They have in the past, but anything's possible I guess.
105 34-45-104. Protection from liability.
106 A person that owns or controls a parking area that is subject to this chapter and that
107 complies with the requirements of Section 34-45-103 is not liable in any civil action for any
108 occurrence resulting from, connected with, or incidental to the use of a firearm, by any person,
109 unless the use of the firearm involves a criminal act by the person who owns or controls the
110 parking area.
Unlike gun rights, affirmative action has no true constitutional basis. Quite the contrary.
Saw that. Checked 34-45-103 (sleeplessly groggy head and all). Basically, it says the owner may not preclude parking with a weapon in an unsecured lot as long as the weapon is properly stored. It also says if the lot IS secured with fences and guards that he may institute such restrictions. Let's look at the specifications for a compliant lot owner in the section:
(1) Except as provided in Subsection (2), a person may not establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of:
(a) prohibiting any individual from transporting or storing a firearm in a motor vehicle on any property designated for motor vehicle parking, if:
(i) the individual is legally permitted to transport, possess, purchase, receive, transfer, or store the firearm;
(ii) the firearm is locked securely in the motor vehicle or in a locked container attached to the motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is not occupied; and
(iii) the firearm is not in plain view from the outside of the motor vehicle; or
(b) prohibiting any individual from possessing any item in or on a motor vehicle on any property designated for motor vehicle parking, if the effect of the policy or rule constitutes a substantial burden on that individual's free exercise of religion.
Who determines that?
103 says the lot owner may not prohibit the automobile owner from storing the weapon in the car as long as it is secured properly, not visible, etc. If it is not visible, but not secured properly, how is the lot owner to know that? If it was visible or improperly locked, but the owner didn't check, the storage is not compliant, the lot owner is then not compliant, and the exemption from liability is void, at least that's how it seems to read to me.
Let's say you owned a restaurant. To comply, you would have to verify that the customer had a valid CCW permit, and that the weapon was secured properly. If they have a CCW permit, how do you know without searching every customer for a permit? Once you know they have a permit, you would head out to the lot to check storage to assure compliance?
Of course it's silly to do all that, but it looks like that's how it reads.
To comply, you would have to not forbid the legal storage of firearms. Let's say you post a sign that says "Only legally stored firearms allowed in this lot." Now, you have complied with part 2. Onus of legality of storage isn't addressed, only that the lot owner has complied if he doesn't forbid legal storage, (for which a definition is given,) and is hence is liability free. All he has to do is not forbid legal storage. He needn't care about illegal storage, permits, phase of the moon, el nino, etc.
It's silent about liability for illegal storage... but you raise a good point. I'll take it up with my senator and keep you appraised of amendments prior to the vote.
It's probably already on the books for the gun owner to be fully liable for safe storage. You think you're burned out? Yeesh. I gotta get some sleep myself. Later.
I know that is the intent, but that is not how the wording parses.
It's silent about liability for illegal storage...
Which was my point.
but you raise a good point.
I thought so. :-)
It's probably already on the books for the gun owner to be fully liable for safe storage.
If so, cool. I just didn't see it there.
OH BULL. You have no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of personal property rights for that matter. Just because you own property, does not mean that you can take someone else's right to BE SECURE IN THEIR OWN PERSON away from them. That is addressed directly in the Bill Of Rights. It's not up to you if someone can carry a firearm in their car or not. You also can't tell them to not have porn in their car or a type of music in their car or any other thing Little Napolean deems unworthy. If you are accepting a person on to your property, you are also accepting their rights as an individual. I hope more states adopt this policy and tell people like you who just don't get it to go back to school and learn something. Some people think cause they own a little bit of this or can do a little bit of that that they somehow own someone. It's not the way American was founded and it's high time this sort of total lack of understanding and respect for the Constitution was abolished.
I would never work for someone like you. Second, I don't have to, because I have options. And third, anyone who works for someone like this is an idiot who doesn't even know his/her rights on the matter, and I wouldn't want to work with them either. I can probably guess the demographics of your business, but I won't even go there, because I know some people shock too easy.
I looked. The points are all baloney. And if the law REQUIRES you to allow firearms in vehicles, then you're off the legal hook for all of them.
"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."
Why???
"Wouldn't you?"
No.
"But then, how would you feel handing a loaded weapon to a guy you just fired?"
If the termination was fairly done and handled humanely, why would there be a problem. And if the terminee is deranged, your "no weapons on company grounds" will simply be ignored. This is the standard anti-gun BS. If the guy is planning to kill you, why is he going to follow any such rule???
The tired old anti-gunner horse squeeze. The employees' vehicles are THEIR property, not the employer's property. Go troll someplace else
“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.”
But public roads are not private property.
Most people drive to work and home on public roads. A ban on guns in cars at the workplace is effectively a ban on guns while driving to and from work.
This is a difficult problem, but it is up to companies to make security arrangements without violating 2A rights on public roads between work and home.
What? You don’t trust politicians? /s
“I have the right to make work rules no matter how ridiculous they may seem.”
No, you do not.
You can’t force me to break the law, do anything that endangers my or my family’s safety etc. You can’t force me to travel defenseless unless you plan on providing personal security and liability coverage between work and home.
I just renamed my 45 Caliber HK, “Anduril”.
If it was anything other than Anduril, I would leave it at home.
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.