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.
Damn. You Ron Paul crazies even have the NRA on your conspiracy list. I love it.
Um yeah. And then all the best employees come to me, because I let them have guns on my property. Supply and demand.
Right on point. When you allow someone on your property you are allowing their civil rights along with them. This is starting to become more of an issue in states with strong pro-CCW. My CCW instructor is also a gun activist lawyer here in SC and he was telling us how a lot of these store owners around here think that they can deter concealed carry with these stupid little stickers they put in their windows. In reality the law is that a sign has to be a certain measurement and there are other preconditions. The lawyer said that he has only seen one sign that ever met all the standards. I think it's next to impossible to get one of those signs. This lawyer is even fighting to allow CC in bars. He makes a very convincing case for this. People are really clueless as to their gun rights and they erroneously think that they are making themselves safer by giving up their rights.
In Texas, if it is the BLUE copy, it is the original, NEGOTIABLE title. The other colors are just copies. Check your state laws. IF the vehicle is NOT paid off, you PROBABLY have just a copy, not a negotiable original. But only those with ALLODIAL Deeds TRULY own their land in its ENTIRITY, and are thus exempt from Ad Valorem and minerals severance taxes.
There is a whole set of rules for conducting checkpoints, too. But that's another whole group of cases.
No common-law jurisdiction has ever recognized allodial title, and there was never any such thing in England, which is the law generally inherited by states in the U.S.
I imagine that Louisiana law, being based on the Code Napoleon, may have some sort of similar title. But France abolished them after the French Revolution, so even that is sort of iffy. A couple of states recognize it in limited situations by statute - Nevada used to but abolished it, Texas has some sort of limited statutory provision but I think it's limited to particular situations where property tax is dramatically increased (say by annexation).
There is a guy in our neighborhood who has put little green "THIS IS AN ALLODIAL ESTATE" signs all over his fence, but he is a bit odd, and so far as I know he's never tried to assert it in court.
There are places where any vehicle that enters will be searched. The costs to an employer of searching all employee vehicles would in many cases be prohibitive, and an employer who insisted upon doing so might have to pay employers a premium to accept such treatment, but the fact that employer wouldn't want to spend the money to implement a policy does not imply that the policy would be impossible.
Note that while an employer might be able to impose such a policy for a particular parking area, the parking spaces within such area might not be tallied in the minimum parking space requirements imposed by zoning ordinances (i.e. if zoning ordinances would require that a particular-sized business have 100 parking spaces, it may be required to provide a minimum of 100 parking spaces without weapons restrictions in addition to any spaces it provides with such restrictions). The spaces with restrictions might be nicer or more favorably placed (e.g. indoor instead of outdoor) but the unrestricted spaces must still exist.
Two, how would I know what you have in the privacy of your vehicle?
As noted, you have a parking area which restricts entry to vehicles that will be searched; anyone who doesn't want their vehicle searched must park elsewhere.
Frankly, I would expect that very few businesses would find it worthwhile to have a restricted parking area, but if one did, so be it.
Many places have zoning ordinances requiring that businesses provide a certain number of parking places. Such places have a legal status that is somewhere between that of private property and public rights of way. For example, the owner of such spaces may have vehicles removed and impounded under certain circumstances, but will generally be limited in what he can do with them or what payment can be demanded for their return.
Perhaps the vehicle owner lives in or drives through a "bad" area.
"This does not lend well to stopping a deranged individual bent on committing a shooting spree in a workplace."
Allowing the vehicle owner to keep a weapon in the vehicle at work has nothing whatsoever to do with "...stopping a deranged worker bent on committing a shooting spree in the workplace". It HAS happened (teacher in Mississippi, weapon locked in car, retrieved weapon and stopped "deranged shooter"), but that's not the purpose of the legislation, which has to do with my first response above.
Ooo.
They’re sooooo scared of a widdle gun! Lawfully owned and carried!
We have it all wrong.............
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139182,00.html
“You Ron Paul crazies”
Leaving aside the moronic comment about a fellow pro-gunner, here is what GOA director Larry Pratt, a “Ron Paul crazy” had to say in his open letter to the NRA board of directors about their endorsement of anti-gun politicians.
Maybe you can learn a thing or two from it. I doubt it though.
http://gunowners.org/ldp2nra.htm
I understand, but if I truly own my own private car, why am I paying annual fees for the privilege of driving it?
“court allows”?
no court AFFIRMS fundamental right.
Remember all gun laws now must pass strict scrutiny test.
The headline is editorializing to keep the court as a final “super legislator”
I get what you’re saying. My original post was just food for thought and nothing more.
Well, yes, depending upon the individual packing a weapon. My wife works in retail, and there are coworkers of hers that I would be frightened if they were allowed to carry.
you DON’T have to pay any fees to drive it...on your OWN property!
Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream?
--Homer Simpson
Yeah, probably not. LOL. Just busting your chops bro. The Neurotic I actually agrees with a few things Ron Paul says, and I am one of the few conservatives I know of who thinks we need to bring more liberatrian ideas (end the drug war, put the principle of federalism back into full effect, ect.) into the Republican platform. I have the battle scars to prove that statement.
However, self-defense is a personal responsibility. Preventing employees from protecting themselves on their way to and from work is an unconstitutional infringement on their right of self defense. Do you want all companies to have to hire guards to protect their workers? Bet that would go over very well, too. Sorry, FRiend, but I think you're wrong on this.
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.