NRA Launches National Boycott Against ConocoPhillips


PDA






Dan from MI
August 1, 2005, 09:50 PM
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6223

NRA Launches National Boycott Against ConocoPhillips

Monday, August 01, 2005
LaPierre says NRA will “spare no effort or expense” to defend firearm freedom of employees of anti-gun corporations --

NRA billboard campaign unveiled:

“ConocoPhillips is No Friend of the Second Amendment”



(IDABEL, OK) – Vowing to “spare no effort or expense,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre launched an aggressive billboard advertising and national boycott campaign against energy giant ConocoPhillips, in response to the corporation’s anti-gun policy and actions.



“Across the country, we’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights,” LaPierre said at a rally of hundreds of supporters. “If you are a corporation that’s anti-gun, anti-gun owner, or anti-Second Amendment, we will spare no effort or expense to work against you, to protect the rights of your law-abiding employees. Their rights are worth more than your money!”



LaPierre spoke at a rally to support Idabel employees fired by Weyerhaeuser because they kept legally owned firearms safely stored in their locked vehicles in a public access company parking lot. Since the firings, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a bill to prevent such terminations, but ConocoPhillips filed a federal lawsuit to block the protective measure.



“ConocoPhillips went to federal court to attack your freedom,” LaPierre said. “Now freedom is going to fire back!” At the rally, LaPierre unveiled a new billboard advertising campaign to target Conoco and Phillips 66 gas stations. The billboard reads, “ConocoPhillips is No Friend of the Second Amendment.”



LaPierre called on all gun owners and consumers to boycott all Conoco and Phillips 66 products, and asked Conoco and Phillips 66 retailers to urge their corporate brass to get on the right side of freedom and withdraw from the federal lawsuit.



Most of all, LaPierre called on every state legislator in America to stand with NRA and protect the freedoms of law-abiding employees. “You can’t say you support Second Amendment freedoms, then turn around and support anti-Second Amendment companies,” LaPierre said in a message to state lawmakers. “Until ConocoPhillips supports the freedom of law-abiding Americans, we urge Congress and the state legislatures to turn a cold shoulder toward this corporation.”



On behalf of the fired Idabel workers, LaPierre reported that the NRA Civil Defense Fund is fighting in court to get those jobs back. “Idabel, Oklahoma is a new Concord Bridge,” LaPierre said. “Our forefathers didn’t run from the redcoats in 1775 and we’re not going to run from the corporations in 2005.”

-------------------------------------

BRANDS TO BOYCOTT
Conoco

Jet Brand in Europe

Phillips 66 gas stations

76 gas stations

Kendall motor oil

No problem for me to boycott anyway. I usually use Quaker State - and 66 gas stations are usually more expensive anyway.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Launches National Boycott Against ConocoPhillips" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mulliga
August 1, 2005, 10:48 PM
Ditto. Not many of those stations here in Florida, anyway.

SIOP
August 1, 2005, 11:06 PM
Well, if I was going to boycott an organization that had sold the 2nd amendment down the river for political gain, I'd probably start with the NRA.

bg
August 1, 2005, 11:14 PM
The NRA does have some problems and has done some goofy things,
but without it's clout in D.C, there's every chance it'd be Pres Gore,
or Pres Kerry. I also believe S.397 and other related pro gun bills
would be sitting in File 13.

The NRA is not perfect, but I believe we'd be in even more of a mess
otherwise as firearm enthusiasts. Just my 0.02

I like Kendall motor oil, but not that much

Standing Wolf
August 1, 2005, 11:16 PM
The NRA is not perfect, but I believe we'd be in even more of a mess otherwise as firearm enthusiasts.

I concur—and support the G.O.A., as well: http://www.gunowners.org

beerslurpy
August 1, 2005, 11:22 PM
The NRA only works with the possible. Part of being politically effective is not letting ideology get in the way of making winning bets. If the political climate is very anti-gun, the best strategy is to sabotage what you cant prevent. If the poitical climate is mildly pro-gun you start pushing stuff through, but slowly at first. When things are wildly pro-gun you start repealing stuff left and right. You shouldnt mistake political adeptness for ideological weakness. They just wont push for more than they feel is possible at the moment.

While the NRA may have supported the "armor piercing bullet ban" they got it worded in such a way that it affects nearly no cartidges outside of chinese surplus 7.62x39 (and that after years and years of importation). The alternative might have been something much worse in that political climate.

You also have to remember that the NRA is fighting an unending culture war to keep gun use and ownership prominent in America. This stretches beyond merely 10 or 20 year trends in political attitudes towards gun control. They have been responsible for sponsoring gun safety courses, hunter courses, ccw courses, etc etc etc. All of this helps us.

It helps us a lot that most Americans see the NRA as being a mainstream organization that represents their views of firearms ownership and also provides valuable services to the entire firearms community. Boiling the frog works both ways.

tulsamal
August 1, 2005, 11:31 PM
I'm glad to see the national NRA leadership getting involved in this. The VP went down to a small town in extreme SE OK to promote the opening of this boycott. There are several companies in OK that have decided to "throw down the gauntlet" over CCW laws. Their employees wanted to have a legal gun in their cars with them when they were driving back and forth from work. Many are far away like me. It is an hour to Tulsa from here. That drive is the time I'm MOST likely to need a gun. I can't take a gun inside of my job and that's bad enough. But these companies said you couldn't have them in your locked cars on the lot either. So people just ignored the rules and figured nobody would ever know. Then the companies started finding excuses to search cars. And firing long-time employees who turned up with guns in their cars. (Probably worth noting that most of them were sporting shotguns and the owners had them in their cars so they could go bird hunting.)

So OK listened to the complaints and passed a law that businesses couldn't restrict employees from having legal guns in their locked cars. CCW holders in OK celebrated. Then several big corporations challenged the law in court and it has been on hold ever since. Their strategy seems to be to keep it tangled in court cases for literally years. So the NRA is trying to foce their hands. Good for them.

I like Phillips in general. I even worked for them as a contractor for a year. But I'm going to support the NRA on this one. Maybe we can get the corporate leadership to change their minds.

Gregg

cracked butt
August 1, 2005, 11:32 PM
The NRA only works with the possible. Part of being politically effective is not letting ideology get in the way of making winning bets. If the political climate is very anti-gun, the best strategy is to sabotage what you cant prevent. If the poitical climate is mildly pro-gun you start pushing stuff through, but slowly at first. When things are wildly pro-gun you start repealing stuff left and right. You shouldnt mistake political adeptness for ideological weakness. They just wont push for more than they feel is possible at the moment.
That's the best way I've ever heard anyone put it. +1

rick_reno
August 1, 2005, 11:58 PM
The NRA only works with the possible. Part of being politically effective is not letting ideology get in the way of making winning bets. If the political climate is very anti-gun, the best strategy is to sabotage what you cant prevent. If the poitical climate is mildly pro-gun you start pushing stuff through, but slowly at first. When things are wildly pro-gun you start repealing stuff left and right. You shouldnt mistake political adeptness for ideological weakness. They just wont push for more than they feel is possible at the moment.

You're right - that's what makes it so distasteful sometimes.

bogie
August 2, 2005, 08:07 AM
I think this may be a little more effective if they know they're being boycotted.

cservice@conocophillips.com

hillbilly
August 2, 2005, 09:22 AM
I came to this thread with the express, specific intention of posting a message that would, with hot and spicy dripping sarcasm, argue that this NRA boycott of a major corporation is just yet another example of the NRA not doing anything for gun rights, of how the NRA is a bunch of wimpy sellouts, etc. etc.

All the time, I see various types on this board lambast the NRA for being an "Anti gun" organization.

However, I see that SIOP has graciously offered to take that task off my hands, when he posted, with all sincerity, the following:

"Well, if I was going to boycott an organization that had sold the 2nd amendment down the river for political gain, I'd probably start with the NRA."


I swear. Sometimes truth is a lot more funny than fiction or satire or sarcasm.

Thank you, SIOP. You've been more helpful than you probably will ever realize.

hillbilly

ckyllo
August 2, 2005, 09:38 AM
that stinks for me there are only 2 gas stations in my home town, one has a no gun sign posted and the other is a conoco. :mad: :uhoh: :banghead:

Mulliga
August 2, 2005, 09:53 AM
Whenever someone finds out that I own and shoot guns, one of the first things they ask is whether I'm a member of the NRA. To date, no one has asked if I'm a member of the GOA. Let's be frank - the average non-gunowner has no idea the GOA even exists. They certainly know the NRA, for better or for worse.

The AWB is dead, lawsuit preemption is just over the horizon, concealed carry reform is proceeding smoothly - yes, sir, let's boycott the NRA. :rolleyes:

Crosshair
August 2, 2005, 10:11 AM
If the political climate is very anti-gun, the best strategy is to sabotage what you cant prevent.

The "Cop killer" bullet ban.

The "Plastic handgun" ban.

The AWB.

Anything that Ted "Alcoholic" Kennedy proposes.

Marshall
August 2, 2005, 10:20 AM
I'm glad to see this. Being from OK, Conoco/Phillips has always been a great corporation for the state. I'll be pulling for the NRA on this one though.

Big_R
August 2, 2005, 11:26 AM
What surprises me is that these folks actually got fired. I had some in-laws that used to live in Broken Bow (not far from Idabel). During a visit, I was impressed at the sheer ratio of CCW's and generally pro-gun folks I met (several of which worked at Weyerhaeuser).

Corporate policy is one thing, but usually the powers that be at the site level make the final decision on termination. I get the feeling there's more to the story of the employees termination.

Ryan

tulsamal
August 2, 2005, 11:40 AM
Corporate policy is one thing, but usually the powers that be at the site level make the final decision on termination. I get the feeling there's more to the story of the employees termination.

It doesn't seem like these corporations (there is more than one) were targeting one specific individual. Perhaps they did want to "lighten the payroll" a bit and this was one way to "get the dirt" on some people. Then you could fire them for cause since they "violated company policy." But the individuals who were fired don't seem like they were bad employees or anything like that. I've seen TV interviews with a few of them who had been there for over 10 years without any complaints against them. They didn't come across as raving lunatics. Just some guys who wanted to go dove hunting before or after work. Or the one guy who threw a rifle/shotgun behind the truck seat after he drove out to shoot at a varmint and then just forgot it was back there. I don't think the companies even found any evil black rifles to wave around. Just Wal-Mart level hunting guns.

Gregg

TheEgg
August 2, 2005, 11:41 AM
Well, if I was going to boycott an organization that had sold the 2nd amendment down the river for political gain, I'd probably start with the NRA.

:rolleyes:

[chanting]
The High Road, The High Road, The High Road. --
[chanting/]

Whew, almost left the road there for a minute.

rick_reno
August 2, 2005, 11:55 AM
I'm pretty sure the majority of corporations have the same policy regarding firearms in cars in a company parking lot. If you don't like it - then don't park your car in their parking lot.

MechAg94
August 2, 2005, 11:57 AM
Well, I hope they come down here to Houston sometime. Just about every chemical plant on the Gulf Coast tells employees they can't bring firearms to work for any reason. I will grant that many of the parking lots are inside the security gate of the plant, but they all do it. These policies also carry over to offices many of which are no where near the plants.

My company has a no firearms policy. They don't want them on your person or in your car and they reserve the right to search your vehicle on company property. The policy is automatic termination. No if's, and's, or but's.

Most of the few people who have been terminated over this were truck drivers driving company owned trucks. There have been some vehicle searches, but only because some fool was shooting his mouth off and someone who didn't like him reported it. One time, a guy said "If you search my vehicle you have to search everyone's." I think three people got fired that day when they searched everyone's vehicle. The parking was inside the plant fence line if that makes a difference.

Texas is an "at will" employment state so, technically, they can fire you for any reason though legal questions certainly confuse that.

tulsamal
August 2, 2005, 12:54 PM
I'm pretty sure the majority of corporations have the same policy regarding firearms in cars in a company parking lot. If you don't like it - then don't park your car in their parking lot.

That's why we passed an OKLAHOMA STATE LAW saying a company COULD NOT ban legal guns in locked cars in their parking lots. Phillips is one of several companies who have fought and stalled the law in the courts.

Look, I'm as "pro-private property rights" as anybody. But what is really happened here is that corporate leadership that is politically oriented toward gun control has used their legal powers to try to stop laws they don't like. (Like legal CCW in most states.) The new law they are blocking even includes a section that limits their liability since the corporations tried to hide behind their lawyers. They can't be sued because they allowed employees to have guns in their cars now. It is "the state's fault."

On our side, it is actually more of a practical problem than a political one. OK is still a rural state in many ways. It is very common for people to live a long way from their employment. Just like kids used to take guns to school so they could go hunting afterwards, some of these "Joe Average" types kept a shotgun in their trucks during bird season. Even as they were being fired for this no one really tried to claim they had the guns for any nefarious purposes.

It personally affects me since I live an hour out from Tulsa. I have a CCW that the state of OK issued. I carry everywhere but it is FAR more likely that I will need the gun in Tulsa rather than little Vinita. But I only go to Tulsa to work. But I can't leave my legal gun in my car. So I can't carry my legal gun when I drive back and forth to work. Which is the time I will need it. Etc. Repeat until dizzy.

I would personally even be willing to "meet them halfway" on this one. I could live with some kind of compromise where I could leave my legal gun in my locked car but it had to be in some type of "secure storage." I could put one of those little metal safes in the car. It would be a FAR better solution than searching cars and firing people over their shotguns!

Gregg

Studduck
August 2, 2005, 01:15 PM
So far, we are behind!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8796456/


We finally got up to 50% - 50%. IMHO very good for just "supporting" a boycott.

denfoote
August 2, 2005, 04:50 PM
Whenever someone finds out that I own and shoot guns, one of the first things they ask is whether I'm a member of the NRA. To date, no one has asked if I'm a member of the GOA. Let's be frank - the average non-gunowner has no idea the GOA even exists. They certainly know the NRA, for better or for worse.

That is because the NRA serves in the same capacity as the CIA. A visible target for the liberals!!

Meanwhile, GOA and "the real intelligence" services quietly go about their business!! ;)

another okie
August 2, 2005, 05:24 PM
Weyerhauser's corporate staff, located outside the state, got hold of a guide put out by the VPC/Brady group and followed the script exactly. If you think they were just trying to make their workplace safer, consider that the day they chose to search cars was the opening day of hunting season, the single day they were most likely to find guns.

In my experience working in many different jobs, Weyerhauser's behavior is actually the kind of thing that leads to workplace violence. You fire someone who has been a loyal employee for many years in an area where jobs are hard to find. I went to a seminar once on workplace violence. All the bosses there got pretty quiet when the guy told them that the main cause of workplace violence was arrogant bosses treating long-term employees like garbage.

I might mention that it causes me no pain to boycott Conoco/Philiips. These are both businesses, now merged, that were founded and built by Oklahomans and in Oklahoma. Now they have merged and the new management moved all the jobs to Houston, leaving two communities (Ponca City and Bartlesville) with some serious problems.

Monkeyleg
August 2, 2005, 06:23 PM
Here's a second thumbs-up to Beerslurpy's post.

roo_ster
August 2, 2005, 07:53 PM
I might not like politcal compromises, but that is reality.

I am a NRA member. If I had more spare cash, I'd be a GOA member, too.

armedandsafe
August 2, 2005, 08:07 PM
I had a similar situation for awhile. I made arrangements with a nearby gun shop/range to check my piece there in the morning and pick it up in the evening. It worked. Did I like it? No, but I liked it better than the idea of losing the contract.

Pops

tulsamal
August 2, 2005, 10:48 PM
Excellent explanation Another Okie!

Gregg

Fletchette
August 2, 2005, 11:18 PM
I agree with Beerslurpy. Like in any war, a good general has to be pragmatic. If that means retreating to a defensible position and attempting to wear down your adversary, then that is what you have to do. Charging blindly into the enemy is simply not a good strategy.

On the suject of corporations banning firearms from cars, could we hold the corporations liable? What if, a CCW holder is assaulted coming or going from work, and does not have their gun to defend themselves with due to their employers rights-restricting policies? Sounds like a lawsuit to me...

Perhaps finding such a case and financing a suit would be a good strategy.

:evil:

Joey2
August 2, 2005, 11:48 PM
I'am not a duck hunter so continue to buy gas at CONICO. The NRA can go take a flying f_ _ k.

beerslurpy
August 2, 2005, 11:58 PM
I see the NRA as the hearts and minds brigade of the gun rights movement. Their job is to ensure that people stay enthusiastic about shooting and guns. Even though the membership of the NRA may not be as political as the GOA and similar groups, that enthusiasm for guns (and their low-intensity contact with the NRA through shooting activities) can be a great lever with which to move people into action when there is a worthy goal to acheive.

I see the GOA as the suicidal shock troops who take big risks to deal powerful blows to the enemy. Observe GOA's policy of ignoring incumbents to focus on unseating established anti-gunners. They had a big hand in the Coburn and Daschle elections. More importantly, they provide a great testing ground for risky new ideas and issues. If a trial balloon doesnt fly at GOA it probably isnt going to fly in the mainstream NRA membership.

beerslurpy
August 2, 2005, 11:59 PM
I'am not a duck hunter so continue to buy gas at CONICO. The NRA can go take a flying f_ _ k.

Oh noes look what crawled out of teh sewer! Its a DU troll!

"Rwarraaah all your Neo-con Rifle Association are belong to us!"

NHBB
August 3, 2005, 12:01 AM
I don't know any of those companies, but im sure wayne is going to pummel my mailbox for donations more than he usually does :D

pete f
August 3, 2005, 01:57 AM
My question is why not issue a class action lawsuit on the behalf of the workers, easier an more effective than a boycott.

second the governor should invest the AG with the mission to police the strict enforcement of epa and 2A rights of the people of his state. and make sure CP and Weyerhauser understand they stand at the top of the list

chaim
August 3, 2005, 02:53 AM
It helps us a lot that most Americans see the NRA as being a mainstream organization...
I hope you are right, but around here most Americans don't see the NRA as being anything near mainstream. I've had people comment on how they think gun rights are important but they can't support the NRA because they support "all Americans owning howitzers" (a comment heard just in the past month) or "cop killer bullets" or "want everyone to be able to buy machine guns with no background checks". All those are recent comments I've heard, and not all from lefties either. People seem to think of the NRA as extremist and even dangerous. When I explain that the NRA is too moderate and I support organizations that are stronger on gun rights I usually get a look something like this: :what:

Hawk
August 3, 2005, 06:43 AM
The cultures can vary in different geographical locations.

When I was working in Rockville, Maryland a CDNN catalog turned up at my workplace with my name on the address label. The receptionist, who opened the mail, got a case of the vapors and "turned me in" to management. It remains unclear exactly what the offense was.

A couple of years ago, while working at my current place of employment in Irving, Texas a Bushmaster Dissipator upper showed up addressed to me. The receptionist, who opened all the mail, brought it into my office, checked for clear, and asked if I was taking her to the range for lunch.

Dang, I do so love this place.

Spot77
August 3, 2005, 08:29 AM
When I was working in Rockville, Maryland

You poor man! Thank heavens you escaped before the communists brainwashed you.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 3, 2005, 08:56 AM
Beerslurpy, apparently you have been around the political arena, like me.

I've also seen sausage made... prefer the sausage.

The NRA is basically all we have. We can jump up and down, but the bottom line is they look out for our interests and have a national presence and reputation. (Just look how they are treated in the socialist mainstream media, and you will see how much power they have.)

They seem to do the best they can with what they have. Remember that politicians have to go back to their districts, and if their opponents brand them as a "gun nut" based upon their non support of "reasonable" gun control issues, they can lose votes.

That has been changing, and the more the Socialist Demogogs open their mouths the worse they look, but the logic still can sway some of the more uneducated voters.

Better to pass a "child lock" provision on a good bill, then gut the provision later.

The Real Hawkeye
August 3, 2005, 10:42 AM
To whom it may concern:

I am joining the NRA boycott of Conoco Phillips in the hopes of causing a reversal of your anti-gun-owner policies at the work place. Many of your employees are sportsman who hunt or shoot recreationally in between work and home, and your policy makes this impractical. Additionally, people have a fundamental right to feel secure in their vehicles while driving to and from work. Your policy hampers that. I will begin again to use your products when I've heard that you've changed your policies in this regard.

Sincerely,

halvey
August 3, 2005, 11:48 AM
I'm pretty sure the majority of corporations have the same policy regarding firearms in cars in a company parking lot. If you don't like it - then don't park your car in their parking lot. Nope, not true. I've worked for big and small companies and not ONE has had this policy.

BTW - what is GOA doing about this issue? :scrutiny:

44Brent
August 3, 2005, 12:21 PM
Send your comments to Shareholder Relations using this form: http://wh.conocophillips.com/utilities/contactus.asp?cid=contacts3

halvey
August 3, 2005, 12:35 PM
Physical address:

600 North Dairy Ashford (77079-1175)
P.O. Box 2197
Houston, TX 77252-2197

Phone 281.293.1000

I will be sending them my credit card receipts showing them how much business they just lost.

Werewolf
August 3, 2005, 02:27 PM
My e'mail to Conoco-Phillips. As an Okie their actions directly effect me.Dear Sir, I live in OKC and often stop at a Phillips 66 station to fillup on the way to work. I will not be doing that anymore. I do not do business with anti 2nd Amendment Bigots. Your federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the latest OK law to protect law abiding OK citizens from bigoted employers is anathema to me and all freedom loving Americans. The $200-$300 I used to spend annually with your company will not break you but maybe - just maybe - if enough other freedom loving Oklahomans stop buying your product that will get your attention and stop your anti-freedom waysProbably won't do any good but then if enough folks contact them maybe they'll get the message.

Fletchette
August 3, 2005, 02:43 PM
Not to sound repetitive, but what do you guys think of the lawsuit idea? Could we (the NRA or individuals) help a crime victim who was assaulted sue Conoco if they were unarmed at the time of the assault due to this policy? Lawsuits with far less logic have won big settlements, and money is the only thing that corporations pay attention to.

I'd love to see their stock plummett like Exxon's did awhile back!

halvey
August 3, 2005, 02:49 PM
Could we (the NRA or individuals) help a crime victim who was assaulted sue Conoco if they were unarmed at the time of the assault due to this policy? If cops don't have a duty to protect an indivduals safety, how does a corporation? Unless the comany is negligent, there's no way.

Fletchette
August 3, 2005, 02:55 PM
If cops don't have a duty to protect an indivduals safety, how does a corporation?

My point exactly. If the corporation does not have a duty to guarantee employees' saftey, then the employee must be responsible for their own saftey. Prohibiting the tools to self-defense, especially off-hours, violates the employees' rights. Lawsuit.

Same arguement applies to cops. They are not responsible to protect us. So, if I am assualted in a "gun-free zone" the state must assume responsibility, and liability. This is why you cannot sue the police for getting mugged on the street, but you can sue the state if you are assaulted in court (where the state must be responsible for your saftey).

tulsamal
August 3, 2005, 03:15 PM
If you don't like it - then don't park your car in their parking lot.

In the first place, it's not that easy. These large corporations we are talking about here run what amount to small towns. Usually inside a fence. Then the parking lot. Then the buildings. There is physically no way to park anyplace else. I've worked for several companies like that where the whole "complex" sat off by itself. There literally WAS nothing else out there. You can't just park in a corn field!

And it frustrates me to no end when a corporation tries to use their "management power" to take away my rights. I was issued a CCW by the state of OK. I did the things they said I had to do and I paid the money. They gave me a list of places I couldn't carry a gun. The Phillips parking lot wasn't on the list. Then the state went so far as to pass a new law saying a corporation COULD NOT stop employees from having legal guns in their cars. The corporation continues to act like they should be above state law and that they should be able to "set their own standards." Should they be able to say you can't park on their lot if you are living with someone but unmarried? Or no gays? Or no blacks? The whole purpose of "due process" is to insure that we ALL get to have the same rights.

The big Tulsa mall is owned and run by an anti-gun company. They tried like hell to ban CCW holders from carrying in the mall. The state told them they could put up signs if they wanted but they would not have the force of law. If they "detect your gun" they can ask you to leave but they can't have you arrested. I look at their signs and laugh. It SHOULD be the same for employee parking lots.

Gregg

oct_97
August 4, 2005, 08:28 AM
Please tell me what any anti NRA person has ever done to protect the second amendment? Also, I wonder how many NRA members are aware that their dues cannot be used in the political arena, hence the need for donations that can be. Solicitations are like sales, it's a numbers game, your results are directly proportional to your number of contacts. If I can afford the guns and ammunition I can certainly afford a few bucks a couple of times a year to defend my right to have them.

halvey
August 4, 2005, 08:33 AM
If the corporation does not have a duty to guarantee employees' saftey, then the employee must be responsible for their own saftey. Prohibiting the tools to self-defense, especially off-hours, violates the employees' rights. Lawsuit. Quote me the case where someone successfully sued a corporation because they couldn't carry.

I don't mean to nitpick, but that is the reason boycotts like this are crucial so we CAN.

Fletchette
August 4, 2005, 11:02 AM
Quote me the case where someone successfully sued a corporation because they couldn't carry.

To the best of my knowledge, there is none. This would start a precedent.

BUT, I do know that people have successfully sued the State after being assaulted in court. The same logic would apply.

BTW, I am definitely NOT advocating abandoning the use of boycots to fight corporations. I waited ten years to buy a S&W J-frame. I am simply suggesting that we may have another weapon in our arsenal. :D

deanf
August 4, 2005, 11:21 AM
I disagree with the NRA's legal analysis in this case. LaPierre said Across the country, we’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights

You can't take away a right that doesn't exist. The 2nd Amendment only restricts the actions of government. The RKBA does not exist on private property. Therefore ConocoPhillips cannot "take away" 2nd Amendment rights.

GunGoBoom
August 4, 2005, 11:30 AM
Even if you DON'T use Conoco or Phillips gas, go ahead and write or email them anyway telling them that you're gonna 'quit' using their gas & stores - that's what I'm doing today. Go NRA!

Fletchette
August 4, 2005, 11:46 AM
You can't take away a right that doesn't exist. The 2nd Amendment only restricts the actions of government. The RKBA does not exist on private property.


Hmmm. So Conoco could fire any employess that were secretly Jewish?

Rebar
August 4, 2005, 11:47 AM
The RKBA does not exist on private property.
The inside of your car, is not their property.

Werewolf
August 4, 2005, 11:51 AM
Conoco-Phillips is wrong. Shortsighted and wrong.

But be that as it may Oklahoma is a hire at will - fire at will state by law. It is my understanding (IANAL so please correct me if my understanding is wrong) that that means an employer can pretty much fire an employee for literally no reason at all.

Do employers do that in practice - rarely but they can still do it.

Regarding the law-suit. As much as I loathe what Conoco has done and why - I suspect they are within their legal right to do it and that they will prevail in their suit.

Therefore - the only way to get them to change their policy is to hurt them in the pocket book which for all practical purposes means BOYCOTT!

buzz_knox
August 4, 2005, 12:54 PM
So Conoco could fire any employess that were secretly Jewish?

Under the Constitution, yes. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its progeny (including various state laws which are the equivalent thereof), no.

deanf
August 4, 2005, 02:53 PM
Hmmm. So Conoco could fire any employess that were secretly Jewish?

Of course. This is not the law as it stands today, but it should be.

The inside of your car, is not their property.

But it's on their property, and they have (or should have) the right to make rules for conduct on their property, and to eject those who don't follow the rules.

And the reason that they have the right to make rules for conduct on their own property that seem to go against the Constitution is because the rights outlined therein only restrict the actions of government against the people, not private entities against the people.

Fletchette
August 4, 2005, 04:10 PM
So Cruikshank was not guilty?... :rolleyes:

Edgeofthewoods
August 4, 2005, 04:26 PM
Quote:
I'm pretty sure the majority of corporations have the same policy regarding firearms in cars in a company parking lot. If you don't like it - then don't park your car in their parking lot.

Nope, not true. I've worked for big and small companies and not ONE has had this policy.

BTW - what is GOA doing about this issue?

Medcath Corperation is one of those mid sized companies. In our employee hand book it lays out that "No firearms may be brought on to Medcath Property (Heart Hospital of NM) This is to include but not limited to your personal automobile while parked on a Medcath parking lot" "The issuance of a NM Concealed Carry Permit does not exempt employees from this ruling."


Kind of a stickey situation, but there are ways around it.One is I don't noise about that I have my weapon at all times.

Chuck

alan
August 4, 2005, 05:34 PM
Re the mentioned boycott, it couldn't happen to a more deserving mob, or so it seems to me.

riverdog
August 4, 2005, 06:55 PM
I'm torn on this issue but not because I'm both an NRA Life member and a Conoco-Phillips (COP) investor. I don't see this as a 2nd Amendment issue but rather as a private property issue.

Oklahoma legislation seems to try to draw a line regarding what can (or rather cannot) be enforced on private property -- essentially limiting private property rights. While the new law specifically allows firearms in vehicles on company proerty, it's really about private property and not the 2nd Amendment. As we saw in Kelo vs New London (taking homes using eminent domain), the SCOTUS doesn't think much of private property rights, leaving the issue to the discretion of the state, in COP's case, Oklahoma.

It will be interesting to see if a Federal court will agree with SCOTUS and uphold Oklahoma's law or rule in favor of private property rights. It's an interesting comparison with Kelo. Regardless, what I see is Conoco-Phillips vs Oklahoma on a private property issue -- then the NRA butts in with this boycott crapola -- like that will impress a federal judge.

Until ConocoPhillips loses in court and the Pro-Gun legislation is allowed to rule, I'm a property rights guy. It's not like I should have a lot of sympathy for guys who can't have a firearm in their trunk -- I live in CA and work on a Naval base, do the math

As for boycotting Conoco-Phillips -- ain't gonna happen with me. BTW, my few piddly shares are up considerably :)

rick_reno
August 4, 2005, 07:07 PM
Nope, not true. I've worked for big and small companies and not ONE has had this policy.

Which ones are those? All of them that I've worked for had this policy, tho none ever enforced it that I was aware of.

Fletchette
August 4, 2005, 08:43 PM
Is there not a difference between "corporate property" and "Private property"?

Corporations exist at the will of the government. They have charters that can be revoked by the government if the govenrment finds their business is not helping "the public good". Corporations CANNOT fire someone based on their religion. A private person most certainly can exclude someone on his/her property due to religion.

I think people are getting confused. Corporations are public entities, not people. People have rights. Corporations don't.

riverdog
August 4, 2005, 08:56 PM
Fletchette,
There are definitely differences between Kelo as a private homeowner and COP as a corporate property owner. That distinction should make it even more difficult for Conoco-Phillips to win in federal court against Oklahoma law. I still don't understand what the NRA hopes to gain with this boycott. I put Union 76 in my tank because it's the only gas I've found in CA that doesn't have MTBE as an ingredient.

Kurt S.
August 4, 2005, 09:14 PM
I just love the concept that a legal piece of fiction known as "the corporate entity" or whatever is looked at as having the same property rights as Joe Individual.

This is a little holdover from the 1800's that needs to go the way of some of the other concepts from that era like phlogiston chemistry, bleeding as a medical procedure, legalized slavery etc., etc.

I'm getting a little cranky in my old age, I guess.

jnojr
August 4, 2005, 09:45 PM
LaPierre says NRA will “spare no effort or expense” to defend firearm freedom of employees of anti-gun corporations

Where is the NRA "sparing no expense" to defend the firearms rights of residents of anti-gun states???

antsi
August 4, 2005, 11:34 PM
-------quote-------------------
The NRA only works with the possible. Part of being politically effective is not letting ideology get in the way of making winning bets. If the political climate is very anti-gun, the best strategy is to sabotage what you cant prevent. If the poitical climate is mildly pro-gun you start pushing stuff through, but slowly at first. When things are wildly pro-gun you start repealing stuff left and right. You shouldnt mistake political adeptness for ideological weakness. They just wont push for more than they feel is possible at the moment.
--------------------------------

Agreed.

There may be some issues where you find a gun organization which is more "ideologically pure" and "uncompromising" than the NRA on some pet issue of yours. That's fine. If you want to go out and donate money to the Greater San Francisco Civillian Tactical Nukes Association, that's great. But please don't denigrate the organization that is actually accomplishing something for your gun rights.

deanf
August 5, 2005, 01:08 AM
Whatever you want to call it, corporation, or whatever - if it's not publicly owned land, then it's private, and those treading on it should expect no Constitutional protections.

beerslurpy
August 5, 2005, 01:23 AM
I dont see this completely as a private property issue. In the areas where people are working but the public can walk in off the street and into the work area then that area is a sort of commons. Theoretically you retain absolute sovereignity over any land you own, but in reality you cannot operate a business with many employees and pretend that it is an impenetrable fortress of safety.

Unless you are physically protecting your employees from intruders and agreeing to be held liable for a failure to protect them, they reserve the right to provide for their own armed self defense. I would even go so far as to claim that they retain the right to self defense no matter what.

By the same token, a wal-mart supercenter is technically private property, but in reality it is much more like a public park than like a dinner party. The people there are strangers who may be hostile and there is no real personal relationship between you and the property owner. Wal-Mart would disavow any ability to prevent violent felons from entering its property and harming you. Do you think an oil company would make some different assertion of responsibility if you were harmed? More likely they would claim that the third party who harmed you was the guilty party and that they cannot be responsible for the actions of intruders.

Freedom from liability for failure to protect should not go hand in hand with disarmament of the unprotected.

Mongo the Mutterer
August 5, 2005, 07:49 AM
Freedom from liability for failure to protect should not go hand in hand with disarmament of the unprotected.Excellent statement. The police have no liablility for failure to protect on a public street, therefore EVERYONE should have the freedom to carry. Yeah you too New York and **********...

rick_reno
August 5, 2005, 09:40 AM
Has Conoco/Phillips lowered their prices in response to this boycott? I drove by a local Conoco station yesterday and their gas price was $2.41. WalMart, directly across the road was $2.49 and the local Shell/Cheveon were both over $2.50. Last night I was near the state border (Id/Wa) and the Conoco there had diesel at prices lower than the adjacent JJ Truck stop - this is really unusual because the truck stop is a station noted for it's cheap(er) fuel. The Conoco station had a line of trucks/cars waiting to get into it that extended out into the street - and they were operating 6 pumps. I had trouble parking to use their restroom. Conoco isn't usually the cheap place to buy fuel here, generally WalMart undercuts them by a few cents a gallon on gas.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Launches National Boycott Against ConocoPhillips" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!