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.
Nice catch! IMHO, property rights are an invention of the state. They can’t trump natural law, i.e. the right to self defense.
Think of what the employer was demanding: An employer has the right to force employees to travel defenseless from home to work and back to home without providing anything for the employee’s security. In other words, property rights trumps your security.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not spitting on property rights. The Kelo decision was an abomination. Recognizing a right to self defense is not taking anyone’s property.
“I Disagree with this entirely.”
So, a state passed a law in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, a Federal Government judge said that Federal Law took precedence over the State law, and a Federal Appeals Court overruled the lower Federal Court, ruling in favor of the State’s right.
And you disagree with this entirely meaning you think the Feds should have prevailed in accordance with the lower level Federal Court decision?
“… they have every right to ban them.”
Do you have anything to back that up? For instance “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”, words from the Second Amendment, is an authoritative statement that people have a right to keep and bear arms. Do you have anything other than your opinion that “… they have every right to ban them”?
yay. but will O overturn it with federal laws?
Gold star for “Good News Post” of the day...
The answer is a very simple, "Yes, you do." Keeping a weapon in the vehicle is not bearing in the sense that it is carried by or on a person. The minute someone steps out of the car carrying/bearing a weapon on YOUR parking lot, then you have a right to prosecute, fire, or discipline, as you please. The parking lot is yours; their car is theirs. No private property dispute at all.
“...property rights are an invention of the state.”
I can’t prove it but I suspect that people claimed the right to property long before “The State” came to be.
However, State intervention in the concept has certainly contributed confusion.
“My vehicle is not your private property.”
Ah Ha! That’s a good point but your car is on company property by invitation only. Even though the companies who lost this ruling are lead by a bunch of idiots who want to make their employees into sitting ducks, I think they should have the right to keep their property gun free.
I guess the response could be, “It’s none of their business what’s in your car.” That’s true but then the reply to that could be, “but it is their business what’s on their property.”
That reminds me of The Two Towers when Gandalf, Gimli, Legolas, and Aragon go to Meduseld and the guards make them give up their weapons. They were none too happy.
“I would do as the master of the house bade me, were this only a woodman’s cot, if I bore now any sword but Anduril.” (p.533)
Declaring rights appurtenant to a car equivalent or even superior to a title to land is going a lot farther than you might have considered.
This is a glint of liberty’s sunshine in a rather dark extended political forcast. Both Lockean principles, property and one’s right to self-defense,(”...life,liberty, and property...”), were respected by the circuit court. Bravo!
It’s sad that the anti-gun lobby has been so successful in pushing the false idea that disarmed people are somehow “safer”.
So very true. Also, don’t really agree that it’s a property rights thing for corps. Private autos are the personal property of the employees.
I have the same problem. My property, my business, my rules, and if you don't like it, then go start your own business and make your own rules. (Before you flame me, I do not prohibit anyone, including employees or invited guests, from lawfully possessing a firearm on their person or in their motor vehicle, open carry or concealed carry, at any of my business properties. I do prohibit smoking, the consumption of alcohol, sexual activity, nepotism, and intra-office romance. My business, my rules.)
If a company doesn't approve of what employees keep in their personal vehicles, the answer would be to not allow personal vehicles and to provide those employees with transportation and security to and from work. Of course, that would also make the company liable should anything happen to the employee during that transportation, and I doubt there are many companies willing to take that risk.
>>Court Allows Oklahoma Workers to Have Guns in Vehicles<<
A victory - but it should not have taken a court case for such an obvious right.
And the sad part is it will likely take many more such cases to restore the right of self defense.
Think this through, qam1. First of all, this is not allowing employees to tote guns around the workplace, it just allows them to keep their gun in their locked car on the employer’s property. What this does is prevent employers from disarming employees during their travels to and from work, and at other locations they may need to stop at or spend time at along the way. This ensures that a couple of large employers can’t effectively disarm an entire town. If employees can’t have a gun in their locked car at work, this has the effect of decreasing the percentage of the general public that is armed while on public property and other private property where the owner is happy to have people armed. The general public is endangered by having law abiding citizens disarmed, and a private employer shouldn’t have the power to cause this.
IMO, the law doesn’t go far enough, as it should also require employers who don’t allow firearms to be carried by employees on thier premises, to provide firearms storage lockers at actual cost, to employees who use public transportation or get rides to and/or from work with a non-employee.
Being the company paid for the parking lot and pays taxes and insurance on it, it's theirs and they should be allowed to enforce whatever policy right or wrong, they feel.
If you don't feel safe at work because of this policy, then you can find another job that's gun friendly or open your own business.
for example, can they tell you what bumper stickers are allowed on your car in their lot?
OK, you are a conservative business owner and many of your clients are also hard core conservatives..
One day one of your employees shows up in something like this
Does your private property rights trump their personal property and 1st amendment rights?
I have offered a solution to the conflict between private property rights and the right to self-defense.
Most large companies are corporations; that is, they are entities which owe their existence to the legislation which allows their creation and which endows them with limited liability. There is no "right" to form a corporation and doing so involves seeking permission from a government to do so and obeying the corporation laws within the jurisdiction permitting the incorporation.
I would see nothing wrong with adapting the corporation laws such that corporations do not have the private property right to infringe the right to self-defense in their parking lots.
Those who wish to conduct business without the benefits of limited liability can continue to enforce their private property rights as they see fit. If a person comes to harm because of the policies of such a private business, then the owners of that business will face full liability for the harm. Those who wish the benefit of limited liability will have to recognize that there is a price to be paid in exchange for that human-created benefit.
In June 2005, Henry signed HB 1243, which exempts employers from legal liability if the use of a gun stored in a worker’s vehicle results in injury or death at the work site because of the acts of a third party.
Why should that make a difference? My property, my rules, regardless of liability.
Showing up with an obama sticker at work is not in the same league as disarming commuters. I fail to see your point....
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.