More Anti-gun nonsense in Tulsa

[RoadkingLarry]

A litttle bit on our struggle in Oklahoma.

Tulsa World

Employers join appeal as gun law foes

By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent
2/29/2008
DENVER -- A group of Oklahoma employers are making a novel argument in opposing a state law requiring employers to allow workers to have guns in locked vehicles where they work.

ConocoPhillips Co. and other smaller employers in a court case contend the law constitutes "an unconstitutional taking of (their) property" and their right to exclude people from their property. That argument is in a new filing by the employers at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

They want the court to uphold a decision of U.S. District Judge Terence Kern in Tulsa who struck down the law. The case recently heated up at the Denver-based court when national organizations on both sides of the law submitted their stances to the judges who will decide whether Kern was correct.

The appellate judges recently allowed the National Rifle Association to file "friend of the court" arguments in support of the law. A gun-control advocacy group and two safety and security organizations announced Thursday they have jointly submitted ''friend of the court'' arguments in opposition to the law.

A month ago, Gov. Brad Henry and Attorney General Drew Edmondson told the judges they should overturn
Kern's Oct. 4 decision. The officials contend the law promotes public safety.

This week's response filing by ConocoPhillips and other employers takes an opposing position. They contend Kern correctly concluded the law is not valid because it conflicts with the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act's requirement that employers provide safe workplaces. He issued an injunction barring enforcement of the law.

That position is in addition to the employers' argument that the law unconstitutionally takes their property without due process and impermissibly infringes on their fundamental property rights. They also contend the law is unconstitutionally vague.

In their quest to overturn the law, employers sued the governor and attorney general in 2004.

The lineup of employers at the appeals court in addition to ConocoPhillips are Norris, DP Manufacturing Inc., Tulsa Winch Inc., Ramsey Winch Inc. and Auto Crane Co.

The groups that submitted supportive arguments are the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the American Society of Safety Engineers and ASIS International, which describes itself as an organization of professionals responsible for security at corporate and government facilities.

The Brady Center was founded by Jim Brady, President Reagan's press secretary who was shot in the head in a presidential assassination attempt.

"Our workplaces need to be free from gun violence, and that is most likely to happen when they are free from guns," the center said.

An attorney for the NRA, speaking from its headquarters in Virginia, said the NRA thinks "it's reasonable for law-abiding citizens to store firearms in a locked vehicle on a company parking lot for lawful purposes."

Attorney Mark Bower said the NRA does not advocate a law allowing employees to carry guns on company property or to take guns out of their vehicles on company property. He said the NRA believes OSHA was intended to regulate equipment and other elements inherent in workplaces, not guns or "intentional unlawful acts by employees."

Oklahoma lawmakers passed the law in two stages in 2004 and 2005 in response to Weyerhauser Corp. firing eight workers at a timber mill in southeastern Oklahoma. The workers had guns in their vehicles at the mill in violation of Weyerhauser policy.

By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent

Shown in bold are a few of the companies that support disarming the peasants

 

[black.wing]

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.

 

[mgregg85]

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

 

[AZAndy]

Wait a minute--

the NRA does not advocate a law allowing employees to carry guns on company property or to take guns out of their vehicles on company property

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

 

[springer7676]

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.

 

[langenc]

Put this one in your file for the next time you need it. The police are suggesting 'more guns'!!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

Springer,
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.

 

[Fburgtx]

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]

Springer,
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.

NASCAR


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

 

[springer7676]

Replies

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.....

 

[scurtis_34471]

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

 

[Samuel Adams]

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

 

[Shadowangel]

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?

 

[Fburgtx]

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.

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

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).

 

[Fburgtx]

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)

 

[TwitchALot]

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......"

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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."

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)

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.

Exporter
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: [email protected]

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

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.

 

[TwitchALot]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

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.

 

[TwitchALot]

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.

There is nothing one sided in a free market economy because economics (contrary to popular belief) is not a zero-sum game. People act as if companies have all the power in a free market society (which we do not live in, by the way), but that's hardly the case. Companies need good (morally and practically) people to work for them, want to make money, and need consumers to buy their things. They cannot succeed without workers and money, and as a worker or consumer, you have a degree of control over company policies (some more than others, collectively greater than individually). Good companies try to cater to the desires of their consumers. Bad ones go out of business, or this day and age, get bailed out by our tax dollars. That's why you see more companies "going green" and more hybrids.


Furthermore, whether something is sanctioned by law or not is not really a concern of mine as far as the debate is concerned. Simply because something is a law doesn't make it right. Essentially, what you have done is avoided responding to my criticisms of your system of ideas by saying, "well, it's against the law anyway, so whatever." It's a cop-out (though admittedly, this isn't the proper place to be discussing this). The law in some (two?) states says that civilians can't carry concealed firearms on them, and I think one of them suggests that most citizens should defend themselves with nail files or keys should the need arise.

Should we just accept that and say things are cool because it's the law? Laws are not right or just because they are laws, they are right and just because the morality and principles behind those laws are right and just. Not as far as I'm concerned. Unjust laws should be repealed, and we should be doing everything we can to do that by contacting our legislators. But as I said earlier, what we shouldn't be doing is attempting to put more unjust laws on the books (regardless of whether they are in our favor or not). In this case, we should be contacting the companies and letting them know how we feel. I have left some contact information above.

And for the record, rights cannot be taken away, period. They can however, be waived or repressed. If you waive your right to a trial by jury, and you don't like the sentence you get, you can't go back and complain your right to a trial by jury was infringed upon. You waived it voluntarily. If you choose not to carry or have a gun, and someone breaks into your home and harms a family member, you cannot complain that your right to keep and bear arms (assuming there are no such restrictions) was infringed upon, because you refused to exercise your right to keep and bear arms for your defense. That was your choice.

 

[Wineoceros]

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.

You stand up in the middle of a meeting with one or more customers and begin opining about what crap your company's products really are.

Does the First Amendment prevent your employer from terminating your employment based on your actions? Bear in mind that I'm not asking about whether or not this is analogous to prohibiting firearms in your car. I'm just asking you whether or not the Bill of Rights prevents your employer from restricting your speech on the job as it prevents the state from restricting similar speech?

 

[357WheelGun]

Heck, you don't even have the right to discriminate against who your property is sold to.

Incorrect. As long as the discrimination is not based upon membership in a specifically-enumerated "protected class" (e.g. race, religion, sex, physical disability, etc) it is perfectly legal to discriminate in terms of to whom you will sell your property. If I go into a store and am antagonistic to the owner or to an employee and then try to buy something, it is 100% legal for that store to refuse to sell the item to me based on my verbal abuse. There are plenty of legally-legitimate reasons for a business to refuse to sell an item or service.

The protected classes had to be specifically enumerated in law, which means that there is no Constitutional restriction against discrimination aside from the 15th and 19th amendments which relate only to discrimination with regard to the right to vote in elections.

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

Lies are not protected speech and employers cannot keep you from telling the truth. I dare say I have yet to see a mission statement that says "our people are encouraged to lie to our customers". If the stuff is crap and I have the proof (we can what if this to dooms day) sure I could get fired but then I have the ability to sue and would likely win. If I lied then yep I get fired just like people get sued for slander.

 

[springer7676]

Reply

Rabid Rabbit;
I stated that I am a gun owner, NRA member etc simply to offer credentials to this forum. If I were debating Luna Science on a same forum I would expect those in the debate to expect some credentials to participate. Obviously credentials are not important.

My opinion as you wish is that your perceived rights are not more important than the rules and polices that govern the rights of society at large, or a Company, a business, an institution are group within that society. If that society be it a business, a company, or other organization has through legislature or the governing entity (owner) stated what the rules and polices are then you have the responsibility to accept them if you participate. If you participate and break the rules and policies then you will certainly be investigated as to your desire to continue participation.

The ownership of property, Private Property if you will, which is a key backbone of American society has many statutes in America to protect it. Trespass, steal, destroy, and in your case manipulate to your own perceived rights, will certainly be addressed and dealt with in accordance with the policies and rules in affect.