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.
That's not the issue. If you don't want to abide by my rules on my property and you are concerned about your safety, then go get a job someplace else. Where do you get off with this sense of entitlement?
BTW, as much as I have the right to prohibit my employees from possessing a firearm on my property, I also have an equal right to require them to possess a firearm on my property as a condition of employment and again, if they don't like my rules, then they can earn their paycheck someplace else.
Not really. Consider a motor home, which may be the sole abode of some "snowbird" types.
There now.
The inside of a vehicle isn't YOUR property. It's the property of the vehicle owner. Your rights end at the outer surface of the vehicle.
Forget about the firearm. I'd fire you for the potty mouth. Or do you think you also have an entitlement to swear on my property?
It's in their locked vehicles, which is the private property of the workers. If the employers provide for parking, then they can't reasonably object to the lawful possessions that people keep inside their cars. It's none of their business.
You and I disagree on that one.
A company could just as well forbid you to bring your private vehicle onto their property. Would it be OK for the courts to force them to let you on?
I disagree with companies arguing that it's a "safety" issue, but I agree that they should have the right to set the rules for their own property.
Hmm. It’s not as easy an issue as it appears. Well I’m glad the ruling was in favor or gun owners anyway.
With your attitude you must have a big turn over in employees.
Firearms in an employee's vehicle to a large degree is about safety to and from work (plus the 2nd Amend).
It is a lousy boss who never thinks employee safety.
Yes, really. The mobile home owner has nowhere near the rights and responsibilities of a land owner.
I have the right to "tell" you anything I want, you have the right to ignor me, and I have the right to fire you. In fact, most employees are "employees at will" which means they can quit for any reason at any time and I can fire them for any reason at any time or for no reason at all, provided the reason has nothing to do with their race, ethnicity, gender, age, or disability. Other than that, I can fire you because I don't like the color of your car, the shape of your tire iron, or your taste in music or talk radio. I can fire you because you drive a GM instead of a Ford or wear Levi's instead of Wranglers. Crap, I can fire you because you refuse to carry or possess a firearm.
OK, and i have the right to fire you for any reason or no reason at all.
Oklahoma!, where the guns come drivin’ down the plain!
First of all, I would never hire anyone who thinks that the 2nd Amendment governs the relationship between private individuals. That is so dumb that I would assume the applicant is a liberal and I don't knowingly hire liberals. Second, I would never hire anyone who thinks they are entitled to a job at my place of business, because I assume that anyone with a sense of entitlement is a liberal. Third, I would never hire anyone who believes they have a superior right to set the rules of behavior on my propery because again, I would assume they are a liberal.
I have the right to swear on your property if I am swearing in my car parked on your property because I am IN my property and not yours. You kind of sidestepped the real issue. If you don’t like horse shit you would really be upset if I ever saw your condescending ass in person. The words I would use on you would singe your hair. Employers like you I can definitely do without. I would refuse to work for a condescending, morallistic a**hat such as yourself. You wouldn’t have to fire me. BUT, I would carry a firearm in my car an sue the shit out of you if you fired me for it, and win in most states.
Really? The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled over the last fifty year or so that the inside of a vehicle does not enjoy the same Constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment as the inside of a personal residence. For example, a police officer generally has no right to enter your home without a search warrant, but to search your car, he only needs to have probable cause to make an arrest and in some situations he only needs reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
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.
hooya!
good argument!
There is a similar bill in the Indiana General Assembly that has passed the Senate, and is being refered to a House committee. I hope it passes, considering some of the neighborhoods I have to drive through to get to work. I don’t see what the problem is. A bill like this only keeps honest people unarmed. If some disgruntled whack job ex-employee wants to go postal, I really don’t think a rule in the company handbook will stop him.
“...it can’t protect everybody all of the time.”
“...common law, an invention of the state so disputes between various parties might not become violent.”
And the ones who benefit praise the State while the ones who come up on the short end complain about the shortcomings of the state, which doesn’t take away from the fact that the State has a lot of shortcomings worthy of complaint.
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.