1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

More Anti-gun nonsense in Tulsa

Discussion in 'Activism' started by RoadkingLarry, Feb 29, 2008.

  1. RoadkingLarry

    RoadkingLarry Well-Known Member

    A litttle bit on our struggle in Oklahoma.

    Tulsa World

    Shown in bold are a few of the companies that support disarming the peasants
  2. black.wing

    black.wing New Member

    The first three companies in bold are all DOVER (based in where else...Dover) companies. the last two are sister companies and have recently been purchased by an out of state holding company.
  3. mgregg85

    mgregg85 Well-Known Member

    If I buy a winch in the future, it won't be a ramsey.
  4. AZAndy

    AZAndy Well-Known Member

    Wait a minute--
    ??? What's up with that? How about the police department, would they be allowed to carry guns on company property? Sheesh.
  5. springer7676

    springer7676 Active Member

    Guns on Private property

    I am a gun owner. I believe that any American who wants to own a legal gun should have the right to do so. I am an NRA member long standing. I was until recently retired the Plant Manager of a local plant that had in its Operating Policies for employees a stipulation that firearms were not allowed on company property. I know that this was the correct policy for the Plant and its property. A business has the right to so stipulate and any employee who ignores the policy on firearms should be subject to termnation as they are for ignoring any company policy on behavior or action.
  6. langenc

    langenc Well-Known Member

  7. Rabid Rabbit

    Rabid Rabbit Well-Known Member

    As long as I the product/item/device in my car is legal NOBODY has the right to say I cannot carry it in my car. And cut out the "I'm a gun owner crap" it is a cheap and transparent negotiation ploy. Kinda of like I'm not a doctor but I play one on tv so I unerstand......"

    A gun in the trunk hurts nobody and anybody that wants to go postal doesn't care what the policy is. Rules only impact honest people.
  8. Fburgtx

    Fburgtx Well-Known Member

    Well, I plan on sending an e-mail to Ramsey tomorrow. I think it is an insult that a company that does so much marketing to hunters(gun owners), would continue to push for this.

    NASCAR_MAN member

    As long as I the product/item/device in my car is legal NOBODY has the right to say I cannot carry it in my car. And cut out the "I'm a gun owner crap" it is a cheap and transparent negotiation ploy. Kinda of like I'm not a doctor but I play one on tv so I unerstand......"

    A gun in the trunk hurts nobody and anybody that wants to go postal doesn't care what the policy is. Rules only impact honest people.

    Likewise, a gun in one's automobile console or glove compartment is not a bad thing either.


    Any man afraid of a good man with a gun has some serious psycholical issues.
  10. springer7676

    springer7676 Active Member


    First being a gun owner and member of NRA, concealed weapon permit and hunter with many guns are legitimate facts that allow me or any other person with gun ownerhsip the right to offer opinion on gun ownership and reponsibility. Its not crap as stated by some here. Private property is private property. For whatever reason or reasons that an owner of such property decides not to allow firearms, alcohol, drugs, or other potential problems on their property is valid in the USA. Rightful ownership of firearms is not the question. The question is are there responsibilities in ownership of these firearms that are governed by rules and policies dictated by other groups? Of course there are..... Just because you own a firearm and have the right to own it does not lift you above the rules and polices set forth by these other groups in society or the workplace. The quickest way to lose your right to own a firearm is by making that right dominant over other rules and polices. Respect of these other rules and polices show a dedication to society and demonstrate a willingnes of harmony within the total society. A weapon in the trunk on private property whether it will be used on said property or not is still against the policy of the owner of said property. Break that rule then break all the rules.....
  11. scurtis_34471

    scurtis_34471 Well-Known Member

    My vehicle is my private property and my employer should not have the right to search that property.
  12. Samuel Adams

    Samuel Adams Well-Known Member

    This is certainly a dilemma - 2nd A vs private property rights.
  13. Shadowangel

    Shadowangel Well-Known Member

    I'm curious why an employer's right to private property supersedes my right to privacy and unwarranted search and seisure. If i'm not committing a crime, how can my employer have my private property(car) searched for...anything?
  14. Fburgtx

    Fburgtx Well-Known Member

    I love it when this comes up and some guys start spouting off about "property rights", as in, "it's my property and I have the right to tell you what you can and can't do on it". I'm sorry guys, but I'm not aware of any law that states that Constitutional rights only apply on PUBLIC property, and are subject to the owner's wishes on PRIVATE property

    Businesses DON'T have the right to discriminate based on race on their property. Heck, you don't even have the right to discriminate against who your property is sold to. How is a nation supposed to function when every single homeowner or business owner has a different set of "laws" that everyone is supposed to follow.

    If you don't want someone parking on the premises of your RESIDENCE with a gun in your car, that may be one thing. Heck, you may not want someone who's black or Jewish parking on the premises of your residence. However, when you are running a BUSINESS, that opens up a whole new can of worms regarding what you can and can't do.
  15. MiddleAgedKen

    MiddleAgedKen Well-Known Member

    The company isn't the government, and the Fourth Amendment restricts the government. You are on the company's property by mutual consent (contract). If you don't like the rules, you are free to terminate the contract.

    I don't like the policy either; I don't think it makes sense. I'm just laying out the legal argument as I understand it (and IANAL).
  16. Fburgtx

    Fburgtx Well-Known Member

    It was my understanding that in many places, a person's car is considered an extension of their residence. Thus, the reason why an LEO has no right to search it without a warrant or probable cause. Therefore, while they may be granting the privilege of parking in their lot, they are limited in their ability to dictate what can be inside the car that parks on that lot.(IANAL, either)
  17. TwitchALot

    TwitchALot Well-Known Member

    And you do not have the right to put your private property on your company's private property without their permission. If they say you can only park on their lots if you do not have a firearm in your car, and you have a firearm in your car, you do not have a right, or in this case, the permission, to park there.

    There is no dilemma. There are only people who want to protect the rights they like, when it suits them. It's no different from gun control advocates being all for your right speech and so forth, but against your right to keep and bear arms for among many things, personal defense.

    No, no he shouldn't, unless...

    You agree to let them search vehicles on their lots for prohibited items as a condition for your employment.

    Actually, they do. It just so happens to be restricted like many of our rights today. Of course, that bolded argument is very popular today. "My rights should be protected, not yours because X."

    Do you not discriminate against people? Ever say, "no," when someone asked to come into your home? You discriminating against strangers, pal?

    Of course, we know how things are. It's okay to discriminate against certain groups as long as you'd do it. That's how the people in power run, after all- they try to enforce their views, opinions, and morals, on everyone else through the law. And in my opinion, anyone who tries to do the same is no better.

    "Everyone's in favor of free speech... unless you say something they don't like."

    Actually, there is another condition upon which LEO's can search your car or home.

    With your permission. And if you agree to let your employer search the cars (including yours) on his premise as a condition of your contract, then your employer has every right to search your car. That is, after all, what you agreed to.

    Of course, if this is not the case, then the employer has no right to search your car even if it is on his lot. He may not allow guns to be stored in vehicles on HIS lot, but he won't be able to enforce it.

    So it's okay to violate agreements and contracts so long as you don't think you're going to get caught. That about right?

    Instead of forcing our opinions, lifestyles, and choices on everyone else (like gun control advocates try to do with us), what we SHOULD be doing is writing letters and making phone calls to these companies, telling them how they've lose our business because of their policies.

    What we SHOULDN'T be doing is attempting to force other people to conform to our ideas, opinions, and preferences through the force of law.

    Some info:

    DP Manufacturing Inc.

    PO Box 471710, Tulsa, OK74146, United States
    (918)250-2450, fax

    Tulsa Winch Group
    PO Box 1130, Jenks, OK 74037-1130 USA
    Phone: (918) 298-8300 · Fax: (918) 298-8367

    Auto Crane AutoCrane Company
    P.O. Box 580697 Tulsa, OK 74158-0697
    Phone: (918)836-0463 Fax: (918)834-5979
    Email: info@autocrane.com
  18. Rabid Rabbit

    Rabid Rabbit Well-Known Member

    Springer and Twitch,
    The crap (probably a little strong, sorry) is prefacing your argument with “as a….” as though that gives you more credibility because you are taking a stand contrary to the expected norm. It is a condescending argument no matter what the subject. Your right to an opinion has nothing to do with your NRA status or gun ownership, you are a member and abide by the rules so you are allowed to express your opinion.

    Sorry but I'm not buying it. The analogy of guns, alcohol and drugs is bad. I’ve never heard of any company banning alcohol from vehicles, drinking during working hours I’ve heard of, but to carry that analogy over to guns you would have to be carrying or shooting the gun and we’re talking storage in the trunk or hidden. Drugs are illegal, guns are not, however it may be illegal for you to own a gun.

    I believe the analogy you are looking for is pornography. Most is legal other like underage, etc.. are not, I’m not discussing the illegal kind. A employer can fire you for harassment for binging pornography (legal kind) into the work area or most likely if you leave it in plain view on your car seat. They do not have the right to search your car for porno. Why are guns different?

    This I cannot believe that with all the cases we’ve had dealing with free speech and privacy that you two and many others believe that guns should be exempted.
  19. TwitchALot

    TwitchALot Well-Known Member

    Mind telling me where I said, "as a..."? Because I don't remember saying that (at least in the manner you described).

    What "exemption" are you talking about? And what "analogy" are you talking about? Certainly not mine. There is no exemption, no analogy, in my post.

    Whether you have "heard" of company banning alcohol on their property is irrelevant. If you are working for them, then you should abide by your contract, regardless of whether they can enforce it or not. If that contract YOU SIGNED says that you won't bring firearms on their property, and they happen to own that parking lot, you should abide by it, EVEN IF you did not give them permission to search your vehicle. It's just the honest thing to do- abide by the agreement you made.

    If you did give them permission to search your vehicles, then you really can't complain about the company searching your vehicle. If you were so unhappy with it, why did you agree to let them do so in the first place?

    I am not "looking" for any analogy because an analogy would be pointless. If the company policy dictates you cannot drink on the job, you cannot drink on the job (or you can, but risk being fired). If the company policy dictates you cannot bring guns on their property, and you hate that so much, either try to get it changed, or don't sign the contract. But don't just ignore the contract you signed because you didn't like it. Again, if you didn't like it, why did you sign it? It doesn't matter what it is. It can be paper, a pencil, mirrors, whatever it may be- it doesn't matter. If the company policy is that you can't bring pencils or paper, and you don't like that policy, don't sign the contract with that company. It's that simple.

    And for the record, I try to protect ALL rights, not just the ones I agree with. It is you who is attempting to infringe on privacy and property rights here. If I don't want you in my home, I should be able to refuse you from entering my home. If I say you must take off your shoes before you enter my home, you can either take off your shoes, or stay out of my house. If I say no guns in my house, it's no guns in my house. Deal with it, or stay out of my house. If I say no cussing in my house and you happen to be a cusser, you can either not cuss, or you can stay out of my house. The same applies to private property regardless of whether it is business, from a logical and moral standpoint (legally, that's not the case). If it's a ranch, it still applies. If it's a business, it still applies.

    The difference is that some people insist on enforcing their ideals, morals, and way of life on other people. It just never applies to themselves. It's okay to force a business to do something by law on their private property, but it's not okay to force you to do something by law in your house. It's no coincidence, "they serve the public" arguments notwithstanding. Businesses, for the record, aren't in existence to "serve the public," by the way, in case anyone is confused about that.

    And to be more clear (if I were not clear enough) and answer your question, guns are not any different from any other object they choose to prohibit. Employers have no right to search your vehicle for guns or other objects unless you give them permission to do so. That can be done verbally, or by the contract you signed when you agreed to work for them doing X job for Y pay under Z conditions. But because they are no different, they also should not receive any special protection. You can either abide by the contract you signed, or you can not sign it at all. But don't sign it and then complain about its terms- if you had issues with it, you should have addressed them before you signed it.
  20. Rabid Rabbit

    Rabid Rabbit Well-Known Member

    Sorry it just doesn't fly, there are many things that you may sign up to but are unenforceable by law, we have certain rights that cannot be taken away no matter what you sign. Discrimination, sexual harassment, privacy etc... Employers cannot fire you for unreasonable reasons even in work at will states. If that were the case there would be no recourse for the employee, and that just doesn't make sense, it is too one sided. The catch phrase “Perform……and all other duties as required” likely has a very different meaning for you than me. I guess that you and I will have to disagree.

Share This Page