coltrane679
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 377
Yes, you can--you say "Get your car the hell off of my property." If they don't, it is a trespass.
Judge Nixes Oklahoma's Guns-in-Locked-Cars Law
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
coltrane679
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 377
Uh, exactly where is that required in the Constitution--I must have missed it.
Just because it's not listed in the constitution, doesn't mean it's not a right (ninth amendment covers this). You may not think that, but we can agree to disagree. Or we can agree to agree that each others wrong. Whichever you prefer. Personally, I think that if we keep quitting jobs that won't allow us to keep arms in our car, that's equal to giving up a chunk of the second amendment fight.
By the way, I am curious- I'm sure that the clause is in there, but what is the clause of the constitution that means that it only controls the government?
coltrane679
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 377
So if your boss doesn't respect your "rights", the preferred choice is have the government twist his arm--as opposed to you taking the responsibility to find a boss who will?
Like I said, the left has totally won when it comes to property rights--people here, whom I presume mostly view themselves as "conservatives", cannot even recognize the issue any longer.
Like I said, the left has totally won when it comes to property rights--people here, whom I presume mostly view themselves as "conservatives", cannot even recognize the issue any longer.
I wasn't meaning having the government twist his arm. I was meaning more along the lines that they should just recognize that I should have the ability to defend myself. Bit of a difference there. Now, one could resign from such a place, but, if they don't have the money to move, in some areas, they might not be able to find another to pay the bills.
I view residences and businesses to be different. I have no trouble if someone says "no guns in this house" because probably less than 4 people go in and out all day. But a business, where you're talking hundreds of random people, I feel is different.
I don't think we'll see eye to eye.
precisionshootist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 186
OK, I have to know how this works. The dogs can smell guns? ammo? even if dogs could smell guns or ammo how did they employer force the employee to open their cars to confirm what the dog found. What's wrong with said employee saying "I don't have any guns or know what you are talking about" and decline to open the car for inspection.
And what employer other than maybe the Fed Gov. would have access to a dog with this type of training. I have never heard of a dog that can sniff out guns or ammunition.
Can you provide more info on this. I'm really just curious as something does not sound right with this story.
mons meg
Member
Here's a thought: I think we're missing a subtle point. The OK law actually prohibits a business from adopting any "policy or rule" that prohibits employees from leaving legal firearms in locked vehicles in "any space set aside for any vehicle". Can we not think of other examples of laws that govern employer policies? Are all those wrong as well?
In this case, Conocophillips is a corporation. A corporation is a legal construct with only those "rights" and privileges accorded to it by state law. It's NOT the same as saying I have a right to carry a gun in your house.
Anyway, I think this decision should be appealed. I think it's got a great chance of being overturned, especially since the judge pulled OSHA out of a hat as his reasoning.
In this case, Conocophillips is a corporation. A corporation is a legal construct with only those "rights" and privileges accorded to it by state law. It's NOT the same as saying I have a right to carry a gun in your house.
Anyway, I think this decision should be appealed. I think it's got a great chance of being overturned, especially since the judge pulled OSHA out of a hat as his reasoning.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Scout26, although it's flattering to be quoted extensively I must protest your suggestion that I "might have been a bit sarcastic and somewhat facecious....."
Those who know me will confirm that I don't even know the meaning of the words "sarcastic" or "facetious," or a great many other words too.
But, as you have just discovered, I know the Constitution as well as that federal court judge does. We both know, for example, that when those property owners argue that they have taken this measure to ensure their employees' safety they do not mean anything of the kind because they will not assume any liability for the consequences of those measures, but we must not dwell on such details.
An employee who assumes, for example, that the employer's policies are assurance that the employer really does not allow potential murderers to bring guns onto the property is just wrong. The employer has no contractual relationship with any potential murderer, but does have one with the employee, so it's the employee's lookout if he is murdered on the property. Serves him right too. And always keep in mind that no employee is irreplaceable.
I am happy to see so many people support the rights of property owners. It is especially heartwarming to see people who work for a living support them. And my eyes become all teary when I see employees support the rights of their employers to have control that extends past the workplace into their private lives.
For we all recognize that when an employer prohibits employees from even leaving their self defense firearms in their own locked vehicles on the employer's property there is no way for the employee to have them on the trip to and from work every day. The employer therefore exercises effective control over the employee's life even before and after the work day, and that is exactly how things should be.
It is a touching example of the American worker's traditional concern for the welfare of his employers. You will be rewarded with secure retirement incomes when you can no longer work. You betcha for sure.
Those who know me will confirm that I don't even know the meaning of the words "sarcastic" or "facetious," or a great many other words too.
But, as you have just discovered, I know the Constitution as well as that federal court judge does. We both know, for example, that when those property owners argue that they have taken this measure to ensure their employees' safety they do not mean anything of the kind because they will not assume any liability for the consequences of those measures, but we must not dwell on such details.
An employee who assumes, for example, that the employer's policies are assurance that the employer really does not allow potential murderers to bring guns onto the property is just wrong. The employer has no contractual relationship with any potential murderer, but does have one with the employee, so it's the employee's lookout if he is murdered on the property. Serves him right too. And always keep in mind that no employee is irreplaceable.
I am happy to see so many people support the rights of property owners. It is especially heartwarming to see people who work for a living support them. And my eyes become all teary when I see employees support the rights of their employers to have control that extends past the workplace into their private lives.
For we all recognize that when an employer prohibits employees from even leaving their self defense firearms in their own locked vehicles on the employer's property there is no way for the employee to have them on the trip to and from work every day. The employer therefore exercises effective control over the employee's life even before and after the work day, and that is exactly how things should be.
It is a touching example of the American worker's traditional concern for the welfare of his employers. You will be rewarded with secure retirement incomes when you can no longer work. You betcha for sure.
Robert, (and I'm not trying to be snide here) since you know the constitution so well, what is the portion of the constitution that makes it so that the constitution applies only to the government? I know that the 1st amendment explicitly states congress..... I am wanting to know. So I don't wind up being on the losing side of the argument.
Outlaws
Member
What part of the Constitution isn't about the Government? (with a capital G)
The Constitution is about the inner workings of government, the limits of government, and checks on government power.
The Bill of Rights is further restrictions on government power.
Further, the Preamble to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights state that. Its all about personal freedom. But that personal freedom stops at someones private property. That is where their rules kick in. You cannot infringe on their personal freedom. And as far as I am concerned, anything and everything should be property owners choice, no matter how sexist, racist, or homophobic it might be, no matter how communist, socialist, fascist or anarchist.
1x2 nailed it. I didn't see anything about property owner's rights in the decision. What the judge mentioned was the OSHA law. Since this is a national law, then Congress (or the fed govt.) has apparently made a law that restricts the right to keep and bear arms. OSHA can pass a law to limit disruptions in the workplace, but they can't pass one that makes it illegal to pray in you car during lunch break. They can't pass a law that says it's illegal to make derogatory remarks about the government while on break. Why should they be able to pass a law that makes it illegal to keep a LEGAL item in your car?? It seems to me like this should be appealed. The judge's ruling didn't say that the businesses could do this based on their property rights. He stated they could do it in order to comply with an OSHA reg.
mons meg
Member
He pulled OSHA out of his rumpus because he knew he couldn't make the property rights argument.
Autolycus
Member
Try reading the Civil Rights act of 1964.
Here is a link...
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
You will find out that your wrong about what it says. It does not say anything about being of a certain religious persuasion, a woman, or a minority. It says you cannot discriminate on the basis of these things. That is an important distinction that your conveniently forgetting to make.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
JoshuaC, how many times must I say that I don't even know the meaning of words, not even the meaning of the word "Constitutional"? I am very stupid although, as you've seen, I have the same keen insight as that federal court judge.
But keep my stupidity in mind, please, when you read the following preamble to the first ten amendments to the Constitution:
Those first ten amendments are commonly called the "Bill of Rights," although I don't understand how it could be a bill unless someone has to pay it. Perhaps gun owners should think of it as a "past due bill." I don't know.
But the way I read that stilted prose is as a declaration by the States that the ten amendments reflect their desire not to have any misunderstanding or abuse of the powers of the new federal government granted to it by the Constitution. For that reason those first ten amendments were intended to be declaratory and restrictive.
The inevitable questions are "declare what?" and "restrict whom?" It could be that the States intended to declare further powers of the federal government so as to restrict the people. If so, the people who wrote and adopted those ten amendments knew even less about the meaning of words than I do, and it's a wonder that they knew which end of their horses faced front.
I say that because every one of those first ten amendments restricts the powers of the Congress in one way or another and not one of them restricts the powers of the people as individuals or the states of which they were citizens. So the people who wrote those first ten amendments and the states that adopted them would have had to been dumber than bricks if they intended those amendments to increase the government's power and diminish the people's rights.
If they intended otherwise, bricks would have been smarter because how would increasing the federal government's power extend public confidence that the new constitutional Government intended good things for them: that it was created to have "beneficient ends."
Having said all that, I will confess that my explanation is folderol (whatever that means) because a person would have to be dumber than whatever is dumber than a brick to think that those people who wrote those ten amendments and the states that adopted them intended to restrict the people instead of the government. The reason is simple: they wouldn't have done it because they wouldn't have had to do it because they wouldn't be concerned about public confidence. They had the controls in their hands. George Washington, when offered a monarchy, refused it--which would have been a mistake if he wanted to be ruler of a strong federal state, unless he didn't know what he was doing either.
So if they intended to restrict the people instead of the government they would not have bothered writing a Constitution and certainly wouldn't have bothered to amend it. What they would have done is what every junta bent on tyranny always does: congratulate each other on a successful revolution, divvied up the territory and split the loot, adjourned to the local tavern for as many brewskis as they could hoist in celebration, and then gone looking for women.
Which brings me to the point of this learned explanation. One has to be dumber than dumber than dumber than a brick--or an utter charlatan--to profess a belief that the Second Amendment was intended to restrict the people in any way at all.
Read that amendment carefully, since it's the special topic for today's service, and you will see that the Second Amendment is predicated on the preexistence of the people's right to keep and bear arms. That right, according to the Second Amendment itself, existed before the Second Amendment was written, and it was written to forbid the federal government from infringing upon that right.
As for those who say that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the States' right, I laugh upon them and the horses upon which they rode in, because even I know that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not the same as "the right of the state to keep and bear arms." I know that for sure because the words start with different letters of the alphabet, and I got a passing grade in the alphabet.
Those words also do not mean that Mayor C. Ray Nagin can order the confiscation of firearms owned by the people of New Orleans or that Mayor Michael Bloomberg can declare guns "illegal" or that Sarah Brady can be Queen of the May or that Carolyn McCarthy has the brain of a flea or that Chuck Schumer cares about anything but himself or that Ted Kennedy has any character. Try as one might, those words in the Second Amendment can't be made to say anything like that except in Washington, D.C., where Mayor Adrian Fenty says they can and his consitutents believe him but most members of a federal court don't and it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court of the United States does.
It's even more interesting to me that this federal judge believes that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" can be infringed by businesses and property owners but can't be protected by states. Wowee! It's not only interesting but also fascinating to me, because the tenth amendment (the very last one in the Bill of Rights) says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The judge's copy of that amendment must have different words from the one I read, or else he can make it do tricks you wouldn't believe.
That federally judge actually believes that OSHA regulations--issued by an agency of the federal government--has rights that the federal government doesn't have. I am in awe, especially because on July 17, 2007, OSHA announced--in the face of mounting congressional opposition and the threat of being put in its place by the Congress--that it would not propose the overreaching rule it had contemplated restricting "explosives" in the workplace.
I don't know how to do that trick.
But keep my stupidity in mind, please, when you read the following preamble to the first ten amendments to the Constitution:
Those first ten amendments are commonly called the "Bill of Rights," although I don't understand how it could be a bill unless someone has to pay it. Perhaps gun owners should think of it as a "past due bill." I don't know.
But the way I read that stilted prose is as a declaration by the States that the ten amendments reflect their desire not to have any misunderstanding or abuse of the powers of the new federal government granted to it by the Constitution. For that reason those first ten amendments were intended to be declaratory and restrictive.
The inevitable questions are "declare what?" and "restrict whom?" It could be that the States intended to declare further powers of the federal government so as to restrict the people. If so, the people who wrote and adopted those ten amendments knew even less about the meaning of words than I do, and it's a wonder that they knew which end of their horses faced front.
I say that because every one of those first ten amendments restricts the powers of the Congress in one way or another and not one of them restricts the powers of the people as individuals or the states of which they were citizens. So the people who wrote those first ten amendments and the states that adopted them would have had to been dumber than bricks if they intended those amendments to increase the government's power and diminish the people's rights.
If they intended otherwise, bricks would have been smarter because how would increasing the federal government's power extend public confidence that the new constitutional Government intended good things for them: that it was created to have "beneficient ends."
Having said all that, I will confess that my explanation is folderol (whatever that means) because a person would have to be dumber than whatever is dumber than a brick to think that those people who wrote those ten amendments and the states that adopted them intended to restrict the people instead of the government. The reason is simple: they wouldn't have done it because they wouldn't have had to do it because they wouldn't be concerned about public confidence. They had the controls in their hands. George Washington, when offered a monarchy, refused it--which would have been a mistake if he wanted to be ruler of a strong federal state, unless he didn't know what he was doing either.
So if they intended to restrict the people instead of the government they would not have bothered writing a Constitution and certainly wouldn't have bothered to amend it. What they would have done is what every junta bent on tyranny always does: congratulate each other on a successful revolution, divvied up the territory and split the loot, adjourned to the local tavern for as many brewskis as they could hoist in celebration, and then gone looking for women.
Which brings me to the point of this learned explanation. One has to be dumber than dumber than dumber than a brick--or an utter charlatan--to profess a belief that the Second Amendment was intended to restrict the people in any way at all.
Read that amendment carefully, since it's the special topic for today's service, and you will see that the Second Amendment is predicated on the preexistence of the people's right to keep and bear arms. That right, according to the Second Amendment itself, existed before the Second Amendment was written, and it was written to forbid the federal government from infringing upon that right.
As for those who say that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the States' right, I laugh upon them and the horses upon which they rode in, because even I know that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not the same as "the right of the state to keep and bear arms." I know that for sure because the words start with different letters of the alphabet, and I got a passing grade in the alphabet.
Those words also do not mean that Mayor C. Ray Nagin can order the confiscation of firearms owned by the people of New Orleans or that Mayor Michael Bloomberg can declare guns "illegal" or that Sarah Brady can be Queen of the May or that Carolyn McCarthy has the brain of a flea or that Chuck Schumer cares about anything but himself or that Ted Kennedy has any character. Try as one might, those words in the Second Amendment can't be made to say anything like that except in Washington, D.C., where Mayor Adrian Fenty says they can and his consitutents believe him but most members of a federal court don't and it will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court of the United States does.
It's even more interesting to me that this federal judge believes that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" can be infringed by businesses and property owners but can't be protected by states. Wowee! It's not only interesting but also fascinating to me, because the tenth amendment (the very last one in the Bill of Rights) says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The judge's copy of that amendment must have different words from the one I read, or else he can make it do tricks you wouldn't believe.
That federally judge actually believes that OSHA regulations--issued by an agency of the federal government--has rights that the federal government doesn't have. I am in awe, especially because on July 17, 2007, OSHA announced--in the face of mounting congressional opposition and the threat of being put in its place by the Congress--that it would not propose the overreaching rule it had contemplated restricting "explosives" in the workplace.
I don't know how to do that trick.
Last edited:
I'm of two minds about this, on one hand gun owners rights are being chipped away and on the other hand private property rights are strenthened. After the SCOTUS ruled you may keep your property only at the pleasure of city councils and land developers any ruling favoring property owners should be a good one.
I don't think keeping your employees disarmed is right, but it all comes down to your choice about where to live, work, or to even arm yourself at all.
I don't think keeping your employees disarmed is right, but it all comes down to your choice about where to live, work, or to even arm yourself at all.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
And there's much less for an employee to decide if the employer makes the decisions. Employees shouldn't think. They don't do it as well as employers. At last it looks as if we've made real progress on not allowing employees to decide about arming themselves. Now let's begin to work on not letting them decide about where to live or to work either!
Everything started going downhill when some guy named Lincoln screwed everything up with the Thirteenth Amendment, which was a clear violation of property rights.
The trick has always been to get the property to fight for the right of property owners to own them, and that has been hard to do in the past because no previous generation wanted to be owned. It's good that this generation fights hard for the right of property owners to do what it wants.
And now that property owners have judges like this one on their side there can be rapid improvement.
Everyone knows it's much better to have your Second Amendment rights denied by your employer than by Sarah Brady, The Brady Campaign, and tacky people like that. Your employer has the right to do it. They don't.
So fight for your employer's right to deny you the right to have a defensive firearm on your way to and from work as well as while you're at work. It's a real good thing to do. And it's good for you too.
RoadkingLarry
Member
This slipped under the radar around here. ruled on a week ago and this is he first I've heard of it. of course the local news was fileld up with a big river develpment tax vote, much more important.
Robert, may I borrow from your essays should I take the time to write to the newspaper?
Robert, may I borrow from your essays should I take the time to write to the newspaper?
K-Romulus
Member
I have seen a few news reports of police dogs that "sniffed out" guns in cars during traffic stops. Supposedly they are trained to detect smokeless powder.
Edited to add:
The implication of the ruling is that federal law REQUIRES employers to ban all firearms in workplaces that are covered by OSHA. That is a HUGE win for the anti's unless OK can win in appeal.
I have a PDF of the opinion, and will post it later when I get home tonight.
More info:
Under OSHA (29 USC. et seq.), here is the definition of an "employer":
And here are the general OSHA duties on "employers":
The underlined part is what the Oklahama Fed. court used to invalidate the Oklahoma state law. Even though the judge disclaimed that he was ruling that all employers had to adopt the Conoco-Phillips employee firearms rules in order to comply with OSHA, his ruling was that Conoco's decision to ban guns was due to its attempt to comply with the underlined part of the OSHA law. The "compliance conflict" was what decided the case in Conoco's favor.
(quote from opinion pg 41)
It gets worse. The Joyce Foundation got its money's worth with this opinion:
You may remember that this particular "study" included stop & robs, and never indicated whether a fellow employee was the actual murderer.
And here is all you need to know about the judge:
Last edited:
there is one judge who needs to be fired.
someone better appeal this on the very simple grounds that the Bill of rights inevitably trumps OSHA regulations.
IMO this ruling is borderline treasonous, as yet another fundamental violation of the charter between the government and the people. But i am grumpy this morning.
someone better appeal this on the very simple grounds that the Bill of rights inevitably trumps OSHA regulations.
IMO this ruling is borderline treasonous, as yet another fundamental violation of the charter between the government and the people. But i am grumpy this morning.
Seminole
Member
Robert Hairless said:
Heh, heh, heh. . . !
Private Property owners need to have dominion over what happens on their property, in order to protect the sacridity of one's position as owner (it should also be reasonably applied to lease holders as well). That should include the ability to refuse entrance of anybody to their property for any reason or the ability to serve (or not) any potential customer for whatever reason the owner so desires. Of course, it is clear that the courts totally disresepct this concept in that they selectively choose when discrimination is acceptable or not.
I'd like to leave property rights aside as they are not the basis for the federal judge's ruling; however,
to address property rights for a moment, it's my opinion that all the protections of the constitution (and state law) are available to citizens regardless of ownership of the property that they happen to be standing on. This was "pointed to" above regarding enslaving your barbeque invitees, etc. IMO correct law sets out that a property owner cannot abridge another's rights, but in the simple case that the property owner wants to stifle a guest's behavior or presence on the property, the owner can enforce a request to leave (trespassing) or disturbing the peace, etc. It's two sides of the same coin. You can uninvite me with respect to your property, but if you accept me on your property, you can't disarm me, as arming myself is a constitutionally protected status.
Further, as long as people make laws, there will be some laws that may be deemed poor in intent, poorly crafted, or poorly enforced. I think the SCOTUS eminent domain decision should have been quite narrowly decided, as the "public good" is too easily abused. I think the cost of the taking of private land should be almost prohibitvely expensive, and the lesson is that the states and federal government should hang onto the "public" lands "we" have now- you know, "read my lips, no net loss"- that sort of thing. It won't be very long until we can't feed ourselves... Fred Thompson mentioned "guns AND butter" the other night...[ramble ramble].
1x2
to address property rights for a moment, it's my opinion that all the protections of the constitution (and state law) are available to citizens regardless of ownership of the property that they happen to be standing on. This was "pointed to" above regarding enslaving your barbeque invitees, etc. IMO correct law sets out that a property owner cannot abridge another's rights, but in the simple case that the property owner wants to stifle a guest's behavior or presence on the property, the owner can enforce a request to leave (trespassing) or disturbing the peace, etc. It's two sides of the same coin. You can uninvite me with respect to your property, but if you accept me on your property, you can't disarm me, as arming myself is a constitutionally protected status.
Further, as long as people make laws, there will be some laws that may be deemed poor in intent, poorly crafted, or poorly enforced. I think the SCOTUS eminent domain decision should have been quite narrowly decided, as the "public good" is too easily abused. I think the cost of the taking of private land should be almost prohibitvely expensive, and the lesson is that the states and federal government should hang onto the "public" lands "we" have now- you know, "read my lips, no net loss"- that sort of thing. It won't be very long until we can't feed ourselves... Fred Thompson mentioned "guns AND butter" the other night...[ramble ramble].
1x2
- Status