[cashion]

A long time coming.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

The court should have left the company an out.

If the company wants to refuse the possession of a firearm in a locked car, then the company is required to provide armed escort and insurance against preventable harm coming to the disarmed employee from work to home and vice-versa.

That way the company can remain safe for killers who wouldn’t obey the law anyway and employees can be safe as they transit to and from work to home.

[calex59]

The wording is wrong on this article. The state doesn’t “allow” people to have guns in their vehicles, the state affirms that the people have the God given right to be armed. To buy into the crap that the state “allows” us to have firearms is to buy into the crap they have the right to take them away from us.

[americanophile]

Court Constitution Allows Oklahoma Workers to Have Guns in Vehicles

There now.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Oklahoma!, where the guns come drivin’ down the plain!

[indiana_gop]

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.

[wastedyears]

Amazing how a judge must say “okay” for people to exercise their God-given rights.

[CottonBall]

Ping to this story.

Ok, I’ve GOT to move there! Do you have any gas turbine power plants?

[M203M4]

I think M60's, grenade launchers, M72 LAWs, etc are covered by the 2A, that background checks and licensing are unconstitutional, and that if a state must prohibit certain individuals from owning firearms, then said individuals should still be in jail to begin with.

Despite that, I disagree with this ruling, on the grounds of private property rights. Apparently I can prohibit all blue cars from entering my parking lot or driveway, but to discriminate on the basis of firearm contents is not permitted. I'm still of that old-fashioned mindset that private property owners should be allowed to discriminate in basis of entry to their property for any reason - age, sex, "race", height, breast size, birthday, color of shoes, whatever. Anyone entering the property should agree to the terms of the owner or forfeit entry. I know it leads to ugly side effects (firearms prohibitions, racist policies, etc) - freedom is ugly.

I can see both sides (this is a fight of one real right against another real right), and this is not a disgraceful ruling in any way. I understand the merits of the other position entirely. In the case of employers, there is a strong degree of coercion involved - nowhere near what can be levied by a government, but coercion nonetheless. And property rights are obviously not absolute - I should not be able to, for example, decree that rape and murder are not crimes while committed upon my property. I understand and respect the opinion which sees the issue primarily through this lens!

But I do not conceded that a job is a right, nor that the terms of employment (agreed upon by both parties) cannot impose prohibitions upon what can be brought onto company property (including the signing of an agreement that no vehicles containing firearms, pornography, breakfast cereals, pets, blow up dolls, library books, Ipods, Kevin Bacon, or fuzzy dice can enter the property).

There are of course limits upon what terms can be included in contract agreements, and I simply believe prohibitions based on the contents of cars should be allowed, and that such prohibitions should not have a mandated exception for firearms. Anyone who invokes such a clause is a poor excuse for a human being, but they should be permitted to do so.

[loboinok]

Marked for an entertaining read.

[SoldierDad]

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.

[2harddrive]

Hooray for the Red, White and Blue! Seig Heil with a Smile!
Finally, a court supports enacted law!

[2harddrive]

Now TEXAS needs to implement the SAME law! THIS SESSION!!!

[combat_boots]

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

[longtermmemmory]

“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”