Judge Nixes Oklahoma's Guns-in-Locked-Cars Law

[Desertdog]

Judge Nixes Oklahoma's Guns-in-Locked-Cars Law
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200710/NAT20071010b.html

(CNSNews.com) - A federal judge in Tulsa has blocked an Oklahoma law allowing employees to keep guns in their locked cars on company property.

In a written order issued last Thursday, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against the law that was passed in 2004.

According to the Tulsa World, Kern said the law (a series of amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act) conflicted with the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act, which is intended to protect employees in the workplace.

Parties to the federal lawsuit included (at various times) Whirlpool, the Williams Cos., and Conoco Phillips, all of which objected to the Oklahoma law on the grounds that it violated their private property rights -- and interfered with corporate policies intended to protect workers.

According to the National Rifle Association, the issue arose in 2002 in Oklahoma, when the Weyerhaeuser company fired eight employees for having guns in their cars on company property.

In response, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a law -- unanimously in the House and by a 92-4 vote in the Senate -- prohibiting "any policy or rule" that barring law-abiding people from "transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle."

Safety vs. self-defense

"The judge made the right decision in this case," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "The safety of American workplaces should take precedence over allowing individuals to rapidly arm themselves with dangerous weapons."

The Brady Center said similar laws should be repealed in other states, "based on Judge Kern's clear findings in this case." (Similar laws have been passed in Alaska, Minnesota, Kentucky and Kansas; 13 other states have rejected such laws.)

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence issued a report in November 2005 arguing against "the NRA's campaign to force businesses to accept guns at work," and that report was cited prominently in the judge's decision last Thursday, the Brady Center said Wednesday in a news release.

The National Rifle Association supported the Oklahoma law, arguing that most gun-related crimes in the workplace are committed by non-employees. It also noted that people bent on violence will not be prevented from opening fire by a company policy against having guns in cars.

The Tulsa World last week quoted the Oklahoma bill's sponsor, Democratic State Rep Jerry Ellis, as saying that Judge Kern's ruling will do nothing to protect workers, but will erode employees' self-defense capabilities.

Ellis said the judge's decision increases the chances that a disgruntled person will be able to kill a lot of people at their workplace before police can respond to a 911 call.

"I guess federal judges can do anything they want. They don't have to worry about the voters," the newspaper quoted Ellis as saying.

 

[Standing Wolf]

"I guess federal judges can do anything they want. They don't have to worry about the voters," the newspaper quoted Ellis as saying.

Not many have to worry about co-workers killing them, either.

 

[GTSteve03]

Parties to the federal lawsuit included (at various times) Whirlpool, the Williams Cos., and Conoco Phillips, all of which objected to the Oklahoma law on the grounds that it violated their private property rights

I'm confused. So do private property laws allow me to violate the civil rights of the people on my property or no?

Because, I thought there was some protesting about that sort of stuff back in the 60's and they made some laws where you can't violate people's civil rights on private property even if you wanted to? Or is it that only certain civil rights are protected, as are certain groups of people?

 

[txgho1911]

Should OK appeal this injunction to a higher court?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Incognito

 

[ServiceSoon]

Good question GTSteve03; apparently the judge thinks differently than you or I.

 

[Car Knocker]

So do private property laws allow me to violate the civil rights of the people on my property or no?

The Bill of Rights restricted the government, not private property owners or citizens. For example, First Amendment speech is not protected on private property and neither are Second Amendment rights. Same for Fourth Amendment rights.

 

[Green Lantern]

Incognito

+1, whether you leave it in the car for defense on the way TO and FROM work (which the law would protect) or carry it WITH you throughout the day (which it would not).

(reads again - oops - well, I guess it still applies whether or not you meant it that way, or just as a filler for a double post! )

I really, REALLY hope that OK appeals this and wins, because if they don't then any states that don't have these laws are a lost cause, and it may be only a matter of time that the others that DO have them, lose it.

The most incredibly stupid statement I've read so far on this comes from the Brady site, but it's NOT attributed to any of them - but rather the judge. Of course, with "logic" like his, he's probably a contributing member of the Brady Campaign:

U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern agreed, ruling that Oklahoma's forced entry law was in conflict with federal safety laws. "The Court concludes the Amendments conflict with and are preempted by the OSH [Occupational Safety and Health] Act, which requires employers to abate hazards in their workplaces that could lead to death or serious bodily harm and which encourages employers to prevent gun-related workplace injuries," Judge Kern wrote.

Since WHEN is making a policy that leaves employees defenseless against an attacker with a gun (who probably KNOWS said employee is defenseless) abating a hazard that could lead to death or serious harm? Is it not INVITING it instead??? :banghead:

 

[MechAg94]

I hope they do appeal. I think an argument could be made that the law didn't affect the work place at all, but just private vehicles. You could also argue that that referenced part of the OSHA rules doesn't apply at all to this particular state law.

IMO, it is not about protecting workers, but management.
My company's corporate office has parking in a 3rd party parking garage. They still impose the rule there about possessing a gun. Makes little sense to me. Not a single 30.06 sign to be found anywhere so apparently visitors aren't restricted at all.

 

[GTSteve03]

The Bill of Rights restricted the government, not private property owners or citizens. For example, First Amendment speech is not protected on private property and neither are Second Amendment rights. Same for Fourth Amendment rights.

Ok, so what about the laws saying I have to hire/serve women, or minorities, or handicapped people in my private business?

Do I get to ignore the rights of gun owners because they are not in some sort of protected class?

 

[Prince Yamato]

"The safety of American workplaces should take precedence over allowing individuals to rapidly arm themselves with dangerous weapons."

That statement doesn't make any sense.

 

[tulsamal]

Incognito

+1, whether you leave it in the car for defense on the way TO and FROM work (which the law would protect) or carry it WITH you throughout the day (which it would not).

That sounds like a great idea until you read the case which brought the whole thing to a head. That company went out and searched employees cars with a dog and then fired everybody who had a gun in their car. Despite the fact that mostly what they found was hunting type shotguns. People who wanted to go hunting after work. (It was dove season.) So just saying that "I'll leave my gun locked in my truck regardless of the law" isn't really a great option. The whole point of the new OK law was that you couldn't be fired from your job because you had a gun in your locked car.

I've been known to ignore a lot of signs and such over the years myself but it is a scary thing to put a 20 year career at risk. But if you live an hour away, how are you supposed to carry your legal CCW gun with you during your commute? Apparently you are just supposed to be unarmed virtually your entire working life. You can carry your gun around town on the weekend though!

Gregg

 

[Car Knocker]

Ok, so what about the laws saying I have to hire/serve women, or minorities, or handicapped people in my private business?

Those were specific laws that were passed by Congress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Do I get to ignore the rights of gun owners because they are not in some sort of protected class?

There is no protected class as regards 'gun rights" and gun owners have no "gun rights" on private property any more than they have "free speech" rights on private property.

 

[scout26]

Car Knocker,

Nice to see that you and Robert Hairless have the same read on Civil Rights and the Constitution.

Posts# 13 from this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3787143

A property owner in the United States has an absolute right to control what goes on within its own confines. Their rights include the ability to suspend or revoke the Constitution as soon as anyone comes onto their property.

Look beyond the narrow interest in guns that concern people here and see the broader implications of what property owners have the right to do. Of course they can deny the Second Amendment to anyone on their property. We as gun owners support that right of property owners because we're in favor of rights, and we are darned good legal analysts too you betcha.

Because we support property owners in their right to deny the Second Amendment to anyone on their property, we also support property owners in their right to deny all other Constitutional protections to anyone.

This is a good thing because property owners have the right to deny the Fourth Amendment also, which means that as soon as you step into Taco Cabana it has the right to search you for valuables and seize them. That increases profitability a lot.

It's also Taco Cabana's right to deny the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to anyone on its property, which means that it can cut labor costs dramatically. The ability to enslave people who enter on your property is a very important right for property owners to keep in mind. Home owners should be especially alert to the benefits of denying those two amendments to people who knock on their doors. You catch yourself a couple of able bodied cops, for example, and you've got some pretty good workers around the house. And if you suspend the Fourth Amendment too you get to keep their guns, uniforms, and other gear. It's your right as a property owner because property owners can do whatever they want on their property.

Taco Cabana can also deny the Sixteenth Amendment on its property, which frees it from paying taxes. The benefits of this right of property owners are obvious.

Best of all, Taco Cabana can the Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments to everyone on its property because it has the right to do whatever it wants there. So if any customer or employee or slave protests anything, the Taco Cabana manager or enforcer can whip those people something fierce, lock them up without a trial for any amount of time.

The above benefits of being a property owner in this country are ignored by many people who own property because they just don't understand that the rights of property owners are superior to the Constitution. No doubt about it.

So the next time anyone rings your doorbell remember that you can do anything you want to that person--regardless of the Constitution--as long as you own or rent that property, and don't let anyone tell you any different.

and then post #15

I think that it's important for everyone to understand that property owners have rights that allow them to do anything they want within the confines of their property. We need to understand that and to help Americans learn the broad, unfettered rights of property owners. People who don't own property just don't count and it's time they realized it.

Meth labs are very profitable, I understand, so any property owner has the right to operate one on his property. Jeffrey Dahmer was well within his rights as the lessee of his apartment to eat people who visited him there. It's time to lay off wife beaters, by the way, because domestic abuse is all right if it's done on the owner's property. You want a few machine guns? That's okay too as long as you keep them on your property. There's good money to be made in running a chop shop and it's okay if you do it on your property: you gots property owners rights.

Taco Cabana can choose to bar people of color from their restaurants and deny their women women employees and customers the ability to vote in any election because property owners can do anything they want within the confines of their property. It's the American way, by golly.

So it's just wrong for gun owners to object to any property owner's decision that the Second Amendment doesn't apply on his or her property. It doesn't.

Like Judge Roy Bean in the old West, the property's owner is The Law on that property and to all who voluntarily set foot on that property. Hang anyone on your property who disagrees. It's okay if you're the property owner. Don't be concerned about pesky state laws that say otherwise. If the Constitution doesn't apply on your property, no state or local law does either.

I suppose you realize by now that my computers are on my property and, as the owner of that property, I don't want anyone disagreeing with anything I say. It's okay if you type the words at your computer on your property, of course, but don't send them to my computer on my property. The First Amendment stops at my property line. I've been meaning to let the newspapers and television companies know that but I've been kind of busy lately.

Although I think that he might have been a bit sarcastic and somewhat facecious.....

 

[ArmedBear]

Much as I would like people to be able to have guns in their locked cars, I can see that this right is not guaranteed. You don't have the Constitutional right to keep a basketball in your car, either, if the property owner doesn't like it.

HOWEVER, I'm confused about how this is a Federal case.

There was a statutory right to keep a gun in your locked car. There need not be a Constitutional right, and the lack of such a right does not nullify the statute. Oklahoma decided to make a law protecting a right that goes beyond basic Constitutional rights. This happens all the time.

Why is this a Federal case, when most law governing real property is at the state and local level? Can one challenge a state or local zoning law, "public eyesore" law, noise limit, height limit, or any other local law restricting, or disallowing the restriction of, an activity on private property, etc. in Federal court? There is a long, long list of state and local laws governing what one can do or must do with private property, especially when it is used or even seen by the general public, and Federal courts haven't thrown them out.

How is this any different from, say, a state or local law that allows political campaigning in a parking lot whether the owner approves of it or not, or specifies a minimum size for parking spaces? You as a driver may not have a Constitutional right to a certain size parking space in someone else's lot, but I've never heard of a case where a Federal court sided with a property owner who wanted to break the law and make spaces smaller.

 

[Car Knocker]

Should you, as a homewowner, not be able to prohibit someone from entering your home with a firearm if you wish? Does a refinery, in the interest of safety, not have the ability to prohibit smoking, matches and firearms on its property? Do I have the right to lounge on your front lawn and scream obscenities at your family every time they stick their heads out the door, all in the name of exercising my First Amendment "rights"? Can I walk into a church and disrupt services by screaming obsenities at the members with impunity, without fear of ejection?

What control can a property owner exercise over the actions of others on his property? And what can he not control and why?

 

[Outlaws]

While I do not support the decision based on OSHA regulations, I think property rights trump constitutional rights in almost every case. The Constitution protects you from the government. But if you own property it should be yours to do with as you choose. And as much as I hate to say it, if someone doesn't want guns in THEIR private parking lot, then it isn't any of our business to object outside of a direct request to the owner.

But if this decision means no guns on ANY work place property because of safety, no matter the owners choice, then that is just wrong.

 

[GTSteve03]

What control can a property owner exercise over the actions of others on his property? And what can he not control and why?

Well, I think you already posted about this earlier re Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If you're a minority, a woman, handicapped, or of a certain religious persuasion, there are things that others cannot do to you even on their private property, so I guess that does at least give you some idea of what you can and can't do.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

"The safety of American workplaces should take precedence over allowing individuals to rapidly arm themselves with dangerous weapons."

Wow...so what happens when an armed individual forms a threat that only other armed individuals can counter? A hostile armed person is a direct threat to safety, therefore making the above quote silly. Who are these "dangerous weapons" dangerous too anyway. I guess a criminal could get hurt. If he works there, I guess he got hurt on the job. So that allows OSHA the right to do wha..? I hate to quote Carlos Mencia, but this time I have to. " I think we have found the Dee Dee Dee"

 

[ArmedBear]

Should you, as a homewowner, not be able to prohibit someone from entering your home with a firearm if you wish?

Parking lots are handled differently, particularly if they are accessible to the public, from homes, factories, or offices, by the law.

 

[Green Lantern]

"The safety of American workplaces should take precedence over allowing individuals to rapidly arm themselves with dangerous weapons."

Well, I take back my earlier statement. As illogical as the judge's reasoning was, not much beats the pure factor caused by Helmke's above statement.

Parking lots are handled differently, particularly if they are accessible to the public, from homes, factories, or offices, by the law.

Quite so. ANYONE can come and go in a public parking lot as they please. Your living room is a different story.

 

[Gifted]

The Court concludes the Amendments conflict with and are preempted by the OSH [Occupational Safety and Health] Act,

What parts of the act are they in conflict with?

 

[coltrane679]

Whatever happened to "get another job" if you don't like your boss's policies? Have we all become like the Left and now expect the government to strongarm private property owners to get what we want?

The Left has moved the goal posts so far that so-called "conservatives" no longer recognize the rules of the game.

 

[Desertdog]

Should you, as a homewowner, not be able to prohibit someone from entering your home with a firearm if you wish?

Probaly, but you cannot prevent them from leaving their firearm locked in their car.

 

[Joshua C]

Whatever happened to "get another job" if you don't like your boss's policies?

Whatever happened to your bosses respecting your right to self defense?