griz
Member
From the article:
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?
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?