Appeals Court rules against weapons at work..

[griz]

From the article:

In support of its conclusion that employers have the right to regulate weapons on company property, the appeals court cited the same constitutional passage that the eight terminated employees cited in their argument that their right to bear arms had been violated – Article 2, Section 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Article 2, Section 26 says: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person or property … shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."

The appeals court also pointed to a 1998 opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court that held "there is no absolute, common-law or constitutional right to carry loaded weapons at all times and in all circumstances."

Since their constitution says "shall never be prohibited", it seems impossibe for the court to decide that an outright prohibition against weapons is mere "regulation". Would someone with legal training please explain this?

 

[1911 guy]

Since the first ten ammemndments were seen by the authors as merely a written list of natural rights, why are we so willing to have those violated by someone who gives us money? Unless, of course those are rights granted by the government and can therefore be revoked by it.

 

[MGshaggy]

From the article:

Quote:
In support of its conclusion that employers have the right to regulate weapons on company property, the appeals court cited the same constitutional passage that the eight terminated employees cited in their argument that their right to bear arms had been violated – Article 2, Section 26 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Article 2, Section 26 says: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person or property … shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."

The appeals court also pointed to a 1998 opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court that held "there is no absolute, common-law or constitutional right to carry loaded weapons at all times and in all circumstances."




Since their constitution says "shall never be prohibited", it seems impossibe for the court to decide that an outright prohibition against weapons is mere "regulation". Would someone with legal training please explain this?

While I don't have the OK state constitution in front of me, most constitutions are basically a pact or contract between the people and their government. They are not contracts or pacts to govern private contracts and dealings between individuals in society. The cite from the OK constitution refers to a limit on the ability of the OK state government to prohibit the right of a citizen to keep & bear arms. It does not limit or prohibit what people can do among themselves or what kind of policies an employer can implement. Since Weyerhaeuser is not an OK governmental entity the OK constitution doesn't apply to it's dealings with its employees. In fact its Weyerhaeuser's company policy that is at issue here, not a public law or regulation. It would be the laws and statutes passed by the OK state government that would govern dealings between private parties, not the OK constitution. In this case the OK state government had passed a law to prevent an employer like Weyerhaeuser from prohibiting the carry of weapons in vehicles on their property, but at the time of this case, that law was in effect suspended due to an injunction (in another case) preventing the state from enforcing it.

An analogy may be helpful here. Consider the right to free speech guaranteed under the US Constitution. Thats a prohibition against the government limiting your speech. It does not govern what you and another private party may agree to. For example, many employers have their employees sign a non-disclosure agreement to prevent their employees from telling the competition whats the company is doing or developing. A NDA would limit your ability to talk or speak freely, but its nonetheless legal and enforceable because you and your employer came to an agreement *a private contract* to restrict your ability to talk about certain things.

 

[The Freeholder]

Company property is, by definition, private property. You go by their rules.

What I'd like to see is a company get their nether region sued off by an employee who was mugged etc. on company property after being told that they were denied the ability to defend themselves. My position is that if I, as Mr. Business Owner, deny the the right to self-defense to my employees, then I must assume the burden of defending them on my property.

I developed this position after going to work for an organization where, by state law, I am legally not allowed to have a weapon on the property.

(And yes, I do know I made the choice to work there. I'm tied to this area for a number of reasons unlikely to change, and jobs in my line of work are few and far between these days.)

 

[MinMAN]

The inside of one's car is the same as the inside of one's home, except it can travel from place to place. The law should recognize this. So long as the firearm does not leave the locked car, the inside of the car should be sacrosanct.

This would be true, only if one's car is parked on one's property. When a vehicle is parked on state or city property, that vehicle is subject to what ever firearms laws that may currently apply. On the other hand, one's car parked on the employer's or private property. The rule of the land owner has say, no, or yes to firearms possession. Unless an employer explicitly rules "No firearms on company property" via employee handbook, or other signed document to that regard. The business owner could be placed in a position where he/she can be held liable in the event of a shooting. Postal?

The world we live in today.

 

[HerrWolfe]

As having worked on federal property where possession of firearms is a crime, and having been subjected to random drug and alcohol tests, and periodic weapons searches and sniffers for contraband, and having had a very high level security clearance, I had absolutely no problem with the foregoing, because upon entering or exiting my vehicle, security guards with M16s were close by. So I had absolutely no concern with personal safety. I could be assured that I could go to and from my residence feeling completely safe, unless I stopped outside that zone of protection.

That level of security should continue, through the constitution of my country, by my carrying a firearm when I feel I have the need, because I already have the right to do so. I cannot be assured of the necessary level of protection, as afforded above, because too frequently the protection is not provided; read the newspapers. There are too few LEOs to provide adequate protection, thus the citizens must sometimes take care of themselves. Thomas Payne's Self Reliance comes to mind.

If companies can control what is in my vehicle then watch out, they already monitor e-mail since they own the computers [but they don't own they cars....maybe they think they do because they pay your salary and you own the car!], and perhaps they are also listening in on telephone calls (can they legally do that only as a company without governments or courts or judges involvement for national security...which I don't challenge?). I do challenge the company controlling what I can have in my car.
The folks writing the law for Oklahoma's Self Defense are at the level of thinking as those folks back the the 1700s, when they were concerned with the rights of man. More power to them.

 

[MinMAN]

I don't understand why someone would have a problem with an employer who has the right to say who comes on his land with a gun, and who does not. If one would think theres enough eminent danger at one's parking lot, to need a gun where one works, than why would one want to leave a firearm in a vehicle at the alleged dangerous location. Chances are a million to one said gun would be needed for self defense, than a vehicle with the gun stowed in it is more likely to be stolen. The thief now has a car, and one or more nice pieces. Or Postal?

Carry responsibly,

MinMAN

 

[bg]

There are too few LEOs to provide adequate protection

Ya know I could of sworn I read somewhere on this forum or
the general gun forum, that LEO's are NOT here to protect.
It's been a long time back, and I'm probably mistaken, but I
thought I remembered reading a thread about this.
I'm getting off topic on my own thread, so I better pipe down.

I can understand how an employer can use certain powers to control
the environment at it's place of business. I'm just having a problem
with extended search and seizure. Security was looking for contraband.
The article states the company was concerned about this. As this
was the main reason for searching, why were the weapons seized ?
Even though illegal to have on company property, that wasn't the main reason
for the search. One member above seems to be familiar with this. He
states the search was done on the opening day of hunting season,
and according to him, the vehicles were not completely on the companys
property, but on public property as well.

I guess I'm beating a dead horse over this. But it's not that much different
that the Cal CHP taking weapons away from those in NO, is it ?
[Well in a WAY off base kind of way..]

 

[GruntII]

I think the worst thing they can do is fire you, then ask you to move your vehicle.

NAw due process kicks in I work in a heavily unionized situation and there are safe guards. Even if they weren't merely refusing to allow the search but offering to move the car isn't grounds for dismissal in most places.

 

[antsi]

So are all other rights allowed to be violated while on someone else's private property, then?

Just curious.

Scenario: You own a restaraunt. You hire me as a waiter. Turns out, I am a white supremacist, and whenever I am interacting with your customers, I try to convince them of my white supremacist views. You tell me to stop talking crazy racist crap to the customers, because it's upsetting them and you're losing business. I tell you that I am merely exercising my right to free speech, and that just because I'm working for you, you have no right to limit my freedom of speech.

Hey, I don't like it either in this case. But basically, whenever you agree to work for someone else you are giving up some of your autonomy and agreeing to do as they ask. I have the right to travel to Hawaii any time I want. However, if I do so at a time when I'm supposed to be at work, they're going to fire me. I have a right to abstain from making widgets, but if I exercise that right as an employee of Acme Widgets Inc., they're going to fire me. I have a right to express racist viewpoints, but if I do that on company time, they're going to fire me. I have a right to dye my hair pink and get 45 piercings all over my face, get pronographic tatoos all over my chest and back, and go around without a shirt on. But if I do all that, I'm probably going to lose my job as a bank teller.

There's nothing unusual about employers placing restrictions on employee's exercise of freedoms while they are on company time and on company property.

In this case, I think they're wrong: they shouldn't have fired the dude for having a gun locked in the trunk of his car. But it's their business, their parking lot, and their book of employee rules.

If, as suggested above, they did not make this policy known before hand, then they should not have simply informed the dude of the policy this time and fired him on any future violation.

 

[mack]

Corporations, Government, and Inalienable Rights

1. Corporations are legal constructs and do not have natural individual property rights. Governments do not have rights and their powers are limited to protecting , by the consent of the governed, individuals inalienable rights.

2. Inalienable God given rights exist and cannot be contracted or negotiated away. Any contract that requires an individual to give up any of those rights as a requirement of employment violates those rights - the laws of our land currently allow that - but they are wrong. ( If someone were strarving and freezing and they came to a property owner and begged them to take them in and employ them and the property owner said sure, but you must be my slave, if you leave without my permission I may kill you, and at the end of the year I may kill you if I am not satisfied with your service. Now if the property owner killed the person on their property for trying to leave or for performing unsatifactorily at the end of the year - they would still be wrong - for the person could never be their slave or property - just because they were on anothers land.)

3. An individual property owner can ask someone to leave his/her property - but they cannot deprive someone of their inalienable rights - owning property doesn't make you God - it merely means you can allow someone on your property or not. Why do some insist on confusing the choice to allow someone on your property or to employ them, with the right to deprive them of their freedom. Yes, an employer has a right to hire you or not, to ask you to dress or speak a certain way in the direct performance of your job, or to perform specific duties and if you do not, to ask you to leave their employment and property. However that does not give them any right to violate your rights - they invited you on their property to work for them, and when they invited you to work for them they also invited your inalienable God given rights that are always, inalienably, with you. An employer can say, I'll hire you but as a condition I get your first born child or your life, if you take the job, that still doesn't give them the right to your first born child or your life.

4. Laws do exist that allow individual rights to be violated - that doesn't mean they are right.

5. I get a kick out of people who get so hung up on "property rights" that they feel they trump all other individual inalienable rights, when the clear truth is that our government really doesn't recognize or honor private property rights. There are a myriad of restrictions, taxes, emminent domain, zoning and other exceptions that make private property an empty fiction.

6. Just because the courts or a government entity has not legally recognized or incorporated recognition of specific inalienable rights into law, precedent, or statute - doesn't mean that those rights don't exist or that they don't apply. Governments are created by individuals, choosing to act in concert, and they derive their powers/moral basis foundation for existing from those indivduals in order to protect and preserve those individual's God given inalienable rights/those rights that cannot be seperated from an individual by virtue to their mere existance as a human being.

Thus individuals, corporations, governments have no right or legitimate power to indescriminately deprive any individual of their God given inalienable rights - including the right to self-defense. As an individual you are therefore under no moral obligation to obey any law, statute, regulation, contract, or requirement that violates your inalienable rights.

 

[MLH]

Thank God

I live in Kentucky!

 

[longeyes]

It's not the employees property their cars are parked on - if they don't like the rules their employer (who owns the property) makes, they should start their own business where they can make their own rules. If that doesn't work for them they should find someplace else to park their cars.

All of a sudden, when guns get involved, the powers that be become defenders s of private propoerty rights. Everything that goes on in that company is under the thumb, increasingly, of .gov. If you breathe, it's a Federal issue.

 

[coylh]

f you breathe, it's a Federal issue.

Air can cross state lines.

 

[unixguy]

Scenario: You own a restaraunt. You hire me as a waiter. Turns out, I am a white supremacist, and whenever I am interacting with your customers, I try to convince them of my white supremacist views. You tell me to stop talking crazy racist crap to the customers, because it's upsetting them and you're losing business. I tell you that I am merely exercising my right to free speech, and that just because I'm working for you, you have no right to limit my freedom of speech.

Actually, I think I'd put it just a bit differently. It turns out that you aren't talking to my customers while on the job, but you've got leaflets in your car that you will be handing out after work at a rally that you're planning on attending. I've made it known through company policy that white supremacy materials are not to be on my property or in your vehicle. Sound a little bit rediculous?

Replace white supremacy pamphlets with:
pro-abortion materials;
anti-abortion materials
anti-religion pamphlets
pro-religion pamphlets
Democrat party
Republican party
Blood Drive pamphlets
etc.

How bad does it sound now?

 

[1911 guy]

Antsi's scenario is flawed.

I get the gist of what you are trying to say, but you're comparing apples and oranges. CCW'ing and pestering customers with white supremacist talk are not comparable. Brandishing or open carry can be comparable because it is open behavior that may or may not be offensive to paying customers.

In my opinion, Mack got it right. Rights are God given and should not be surrendered. Anything else is an allowance made to a citizen and can be revoked at the whim of government.

 

[k_dawg]

IMHO: if the property owner has no ability to ban LEO's from bringing firearms onto their property [ when not actively serving a warrant ].. then why should it be ANY different for employees?

 

[Camp David]

I understand they were searching cars using tracking dogs...

Tracking dogs to sniff for firearms? Is that even possible? What do they sniff for ....Hopes powder solvent???

 

[ARperson]

One thing we're all forgetting here is that the Bill of Rights was an iteration of our rights specifically written for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT so that said entity would not tramp all over them. If our government operated as it should, we wouldn't even need the BoR (several of the founding fathers argued this and related ideas). It was not written to restrict the actions of the population.

As for the rental property theoretical question: FAIR HOUSING LAWS prevent discrimination based on 7 protected classes (the examples used in the post), not the BoR or Civil Rights legislation.

And aside from any local ordinances/laws to the contrary, you CAN deny housing to anyone for any reason as long as it is NOT based on one of the 7 protected classes.

Private property is private property and the owner is subject to very little in the way of legislation when determining what activity can and cannot take place there (illegal activity not withstanding).

 

[antsi]

My example is perfectly germane

I get the gist of what you are trying to say, but you're comparing apples and oranges. CCW'ing and pestering customers with white supremacist talk are not comparable. Brandishing or open carry can be comparable because it is open behavior that may or may not be offensive to paying customers.

In my opinion, Mack got it right. Rights are God given and should not be surrendered. Anything else is an allowance made to a citizen and can be revoked at the whim of government.

The question was, "Can a business owner restrict the constitutional rights of an employee when the employee is on company property, or make such a restriction a condition of employment?"

I have a constitutional right to free speech. I have a constitutional right to spout off white supremacist views. However, it is reasonable for a business owner to require me restricting that right on company time as a condition of employment.

Therefore, this is an example where a business owner can reasonably ask me to restrict my engagement of constitutional rights as a condition of employment.

If I'm going to work for the business owner, I have to voluntarily restrict my free speech, even though free speech is a constitutional right.

Brandishing is not a constitutional right. Not relevant to this discussion.

 

[HerrWolfe]

One cannot sell one's constitutional rights nor relinquish them via contract!

 

[MGshaggy]

One cannot sell one's constitutional rights nor relinquish them via contract!

But you can (as is the case of these employees) consent to limit the free exercise of your rights with a private party.

Ever sign a non-disclosure agreement?

 

[unixguy]

Brandishing is not a constitutional right. Not relevant to this discussion.

Are we following the same discussion? The original case was not about brandishing, and NOBODY has suggesting that brandishing is a right that is enumerated in the BoR. "Bearing arms" does not equal "brandishing".

The original case was about folks being fired for having firearms in their vehicles. What you keep bringing up is more along the lines of "Can my employer fire me for not keeping my end of a contract when I've committed to perform my work duties but instead choose to allow the exercising of my rights to interfere with my job duties", which is a straw man.

As an extension of the original discussion (about searching cars), we've talked a bit about possible conflicts between exercising our rights while at work.
I don't believe that anybody is suggesting that the exercising of rights that do not interfere with work duties should be protected, but I think they ARE saying that the exercising of rights that don't interfere with work duties should be beyond the purview of our employers to limit.

 

[antsi]

Are we following the same discussion? The original case was not about brandishing, and NOBODY has suggesting that brandishing is a right that is enumerated in the BoR. "Bearing arms" does not equal "brandishing".

I wasn't the one who brought up brandishing - that was 1911guy. My response was that brandishing is not relevant to this discussion. Now you're attacking me on the basis that brandishing is not relevant to this discussion? Maybe you're the one who's not following the same discussion.

As an employee, I would like to be able to carry and/or keep guns in my car if I so chose. But the place of business is private property. As a private property owner, they have the right to restrict what I do on their property. As a private individual, I also have the right to tell them I'm not willing to work under their restrictions.

Similarly, I can enter into an agreement with you saying "You can park in my driveway so long as you don't have any Libertarian Party bumper stickers on your car." If I tried to enforce such a restriction on you in a public place, or on your own property, I'd be violating your constitutional rights. But if you want to come on my property, you have to play by my rules. You don't like my rules, stay off my property.

If "interference with work duties" is the crux of the matter for you, I'll change my example. Say the waiter goes about his waiter duties normally, but he has white supremacist propaganda printed on his shirt. Or he continually tries to recruit other employees to join his white supremacist group during break times. Again, these are actions that would normally be constitutionally protected freedoms, but if he insists on exercising them in the workplace, the employer has the right to fire him.

The principle is the same. Your constitutional rights end at my property line. You have freedom of assembly, but not in my living room. You have the freedom to keep and bear arms, but not in my basement. You have freedom of the press, but not using my Xerox machine.

 

[unixguy]

I wasn't the one who brought up brandishing - that was 1911guy. My response was that brandishing is not relevant to this discussion. Now you're attacking me on the basis that brandishing is not relevant to this discussion? Maybe you're the one who's not following the same discussion.

Ah, mea culpa. Despite the fact that you quoted his comment, I somehow missed it. I think what he was saying is that the example you gave was closer to what we'd be talking about if the employees were fired for open carry or brandishing, rather than having had the guns locked in their vehicles.

If "interference with work duties" is the crux of the matter for you, I'll change my example. Say the waiter goes about his waiter duties normally, but he has white supremacist propaganda printed on his shirt. Or he continually tries to recruit other employees to join his white supremacist group during break times. Again, these are actions that would normally be constitutionally protected freedoms, but if he insists on exercising them in the workplace, the employer has the right to fire him.

And I would agree with you only if there is some form of standard stating that the waiter has a uniform that is expected to be worn or if there's some understanding that the waiter's job is to make the customers comfortable and welcome. Since both of these are quite commonly expected of waiters, I think that there would be a job performance issue to be addressed (assuming of course that the customers aren't all white supremists who love the shirt).

I think that the "recruiting during break time" issue is another straw man. Take an example from the other extreme-- people having a discussion about something completely benign and being fired because it's on the non-approved list of things to talk about.

The principle is the same. Your constitutional rights end at my property line. You have freedom of assembly, but not in my living room. You have the freedom to keep and bear arms, but not in my basement. You have freedom of the press, but not using my Xerox machine.

And each of these examples shifts the "cost" of exercising that right onto you (or the employer), which I maintain is not comparable to the original issue of weapons that were in the vehicles. The right that these individuals were exercising (IMO) really wasn't being exercised at that moment-- they just had stored their weapons in their vehicles so that they could exercise their right at a place and time that was appropriate.

I think for me the real question is does current labor law allow employers to place contractual restrictions on employees that don't have a definite impact on the performance of the job? For example, my employees work at computers and occasionally have to be able to lift computers or UPSes. I'm allowed to require that they be able to do this physical work. I'm not allowed to require that employees be able to bench 125 pounds, because it's not required in order to do the job. (This is because it's considered discriminatory to a protected class of employee, however.)

Maybe the solution is to start "The Church of the Self-Sufficient", with one of the main tenets of the faith being that you must hunt and provide sustenance to your family and friends. (Landing you in a protected class category.)

I am normally on the side of the employer to hire and fire at will, but it makes me pause and reconsider when an employer can (IMO) get it so wrong that they are firing folks for legal items that are in their vehicles.