Whirlpool Corp. seeks to block CCW law on Oklahoma.

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

F4GIB

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
1,165
Location
Midwest
11/11/04 Daily Oklahoman 6B
Thursday, November 11, 2004

State readies case to enforce locked-car gun law; Hearing date set in federal court as companies seek to keep parking lot gun ban

Sean Murphy
Associated Press Writer

The state is preparing to square off in federal court against Whirlpool Corp. and several other Oklahoma businesses who are trying to overturn a new gun law. The law approved by the Legislature last session would prohibit businesses from banning guns in locked vehicles on company property. It was scheduled to take effect Nov. 1, but U.S. Chief District Judge Sven Erik Holmes delayed its implementation.

In the latest paperwork filed by the state attorney general’s office Monday, the state contends federal court is not the proper venue for the case. The next hearing is scheduled Nov. 23.

State Sen. Frank Shurden, co author of the bill, said the measure was prompted when a paper company in southeast Oklahoma fired several employees when guns were found in their vehicles during a drug sweep. Shurden, who authored the state’s concealed gun carry law in 1995, said some employees may face dangerous situations driving to and from work and should be allowed to carry a weapon.

“A lot of these businesses have late-night shifts, and these employees are subject to being violated by any type of predator that may be armed,†the Henryetta Democrat said.

Officials with Whirlpool did not respond to requests for comment, but in a complaint filed in federal court, the company said it should have the authority to prohibit items from being brought onto its property that may pose a danger to its employees.

“This includes the right to exclude individuals who possess firearms in locked vehicles on Whirlpool’s property, including its parking lot,†the complaint states.

Whirlpool Corp. employs about 1,500 workers at its Tulsa plant and has had a written policy in place since production began in 1996 that prohibits possession of firearms anywhere on company property, according to the complaint. * * *
 
F4GIB said:
11/11/04 Daily Oklahoman 6B
State Sen. Frank Shurden, co author of the bill, said the measure was prompted when a paper company in southeast Oklahoma fired several employees when guns were found in their vehicles during a drug sweep.
Click to expand...

:eek: You mean companies in Oklahoma search their employees' cars for drugs? :eek: I live in southwest VA and they don't do that kind of crap around here. Where else does this take place?
 
I work there. Guess who enforces the Violence Protection Policy. Guess. Unarmed security guards. Who are also the receptionists. And they never watch the cameras. Ever. I feel real safe at work. Oh yeah. I get to dial 911 when I here the shots that kill or wound them. Smart policy.
 
It never ceases to amaze me that people can be so incredibly stupid as to believe that a new law will stop illegal behavior. If a "bad guy" has illegal intentions, having a law means nothing, as we all know.

I sent an e-mail to their corporate office voicing my displeasure as a consumer and law abiding permit holder, noting that there are other vendors and that Whirlpool will never again be in the race when we replace our appliances.

If anyone else feels the urge to write to Whirlpool, the contact page is at:

http://www.whirlpool.com/custserv/email_form.jsp
 
Whirlpool should have the right to apply any dam-fool stupid policy it wants, as a condition of employment and/or use of their parking lot.

Note that I'm not defending the policy--just their right to do what they want on their property. I'd be inclined to seek other employment if they did this to me.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Individual Rights

Where should property rights end where individual rights are involved. Corp. are legaly individuals from the slew of corporation laws and policy. Not sure of the proper term for this.
I would like to see the individual rights recognized first and the property rights second place. Certainly allow corporations the ability to regulate through policy limitations like "no open cary in customer service areas" or adoption of the basic handling rules for carry. Keep your hands off of it at work.
 
I work in a bad area in PA. Very ghetto, very violent. I think a few years ago during the rash of shootings du jour, a black man executed several white people at a McDonalds, because they were white. Thats two blocks away. My company forbids me to have a handgun, because I work with children.

Solution? I DONT PARK ON COMPANY PROPERTY!
(I park 3 feet outside of it)
 
I remember a similar case with AOL a few years ago. I won't be buying anything from Whirlpool, and I'm writing to let them know. Naturally, nothing from AOL is allowed on my computer either.

I'm all for companies getting to set policy on their property, but not when it intentionally endangers employees. Saying that legally stored firearms are a threat to employees is asinine, and how anyone could believe that they pose more threat to employees than criminals is beyond my comprehension.
 
Here's what I sent to Whirlpool. Surprisingly enough they promise to respond within 3 business days if you request one. It'll be interesting to see if they do...

I am an Oklahoma resident with a valid Concealed Carry Permit. This means that I have been certified by the city, county, state and Federal Government as a genuine "good guy".

I am apalled that your corporation would file suit in federal court to overturn the OK law that makes it illegal for corporations to prohibit the presence of lawfully owned and carried firearms in their parking lots. Policies like that don't do anything but make it safer for criminals. I guess you guys consider the lives of criminals more valuable than the lives of your employees. Your inane policy will do nothing to prevent a criminal from bringing a firearm on your property. It will however disarm and put at risk law abiding employees.

I believe that it is your right as a property owner to define what ever you deem right and proper for your company and it's employees and for what it is worth believe that you will prevail in your lawsuit.

On the other hand it is my right to choose from whom and what brands of appliances I purchase.

Rest assured that Whirlpool will not now or ever again be on my list and I will spread by word of mouth my complete and utter disdain for your company and it's products.

Be happy that you are alienating not just me but a very sizable proportion of the population by your actions.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXX
Oklahoma City,
Click to expand...
 
Leatherneck said:
Whirlpool should have the right to apply any dam-fool stupid policy it wants, as a condition of employment and/or use of their parking lot.
Click to expand...

Think about this for a moment. There is much more at stake here than on-the-job conduct or property rights. It's your very security.

Most CCW holders work. If they can ban you from carrying at work, AND you can't store you gun in your vehicle, the practical effect of the ban is to prohibit carry everywhere. At a minimum you are disarmed to and from work (and every place you visit in between). Practically, with a work ban, you get to carry only on weekends.

P. S. Whirlpool makes Kitchen-Aid appliances. Avoid them too.
 
Darn!, I just bought a new whirlpool 'frigerator. Good letter Werewolf. I'm going voice my displeasure also. It just so happens I need a range and washer/dryer set soon. MAYTAG !
 
I think it is their right to say no firearms on their property as a term of employment. It bothers me how people will rant to no end on how they should have the right to do anything on their own private land, yet say someone else must allow them to have their guns on their land. I think that Vitamin G has it right, just park off their property.

That being said, I certainly agree that you should not support them.
 
The property rights issue isn't clearcut here. The cars don't belong to the company. Are the employees giving consent to search as a condition of employment? If so, do they search cars parked elsewhere? Do they require the employees to park on company property? Are the parking lots accessible to the general public or only the employees? If accessible to the public do they search their vehicles also?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
F4GIB said:
Think about this for a moment. There is much more at stake here than on-the-job conduct or property rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, freedom is at stake. They have every right to set the rules that apply on their property. Do we have to like it? No, but if we expect others to recognize our rights, we have to recognize that others have rights as well, whether we like them or not. I'm not saying that it is wrong to voice your opinion to them, but in the end, you must respect their rights as well.

F4GIB said:
P. S. Whirlpool makes Kitchen-Aid appliances. Avoid them too.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Kenmore.
 
CCW has been a "politically hot" issue in OK ever since the first bill was introduced. But we have had it in effect for years now and it has been an objective success. However we all know logic never seems to enter into opposition to such laws.

The opponents of CCW in OK first tried to stop the laws from passing. When it became obvious it were going to pass, they tried to do the Ohio thing and cripple them in some way. They were unsuccessful. Up to that point I have no problem with their actions; they were being a force in a political system and trying to influence that system in a way they thought was "right." But they lost. It is their actions since then that leave a bad taste in my mouth.

We have a huge mall in south Tulsa. The owner of the huge complex was an opponent of the CCW law. When his side lost, he made a big deal that "nobody was going to carry a gun in HIS mall." He had them putting up signs on all the doors. We are talking about hundreds of stores that he was effectively blocking access to. The state of OK had a little talk with him and explained that the law DID allow him to put up the signs BUT it still wouldn't be ILLEGAL for any valid CCW holder to carry inside the mall. If a person was somehow found to be carrying a legal gun, the mall owner (security) could ask them to leave and they would have to go or be arrested for trespassing. The word was put out through the required CCW classes.

That put the mall owner in a hard place and he basically punted. He could keep making a big issue of it and just cause some people to boycott his mall. Meanwhile a lot of people would be carrying anyway. Or he could tone the whole thing down and wait for a later opportunity. He decided the latter course was better. Last time I was at the mall there were still signs on the main doors but they are little ones right next to the ones that say "No Animals." Everybody just ignores it.

But then we had the controversy over parking lots. It has already been pointed out that this is a big problem for a lot of people. I leave an hour away from Tulsa. If I go in to work, that's two hours (at least) on the road. THAT is the time I would probably need a gun the most. But if my company is totally against stored guns in locked cars, they have effectively "gone around" the intent of the state government and stopped me from being able to use my CCW. So the state government listened. (Even I'm amazed!) They had hearings. Everybody got to voice their opinions. People who wanted to be able to store in their cars and the business owners that didn't like it. Everybody got their say. The legislature debated it over more than one session. Finally they decided it made sense to them and they passed the law. It was scheduled to go into effect on 01 NOV but then several companies sued at the last minute and got it put on hold.

Now I'm usually a big backer of "property rights." But it seems to me that this is just the latest effort by various "wealthy groups" to go outside of the political process to try to stop an activity that they don't approve of. Sure, an employee could get mad at their boss and go out to their car and get a gun. But they could do that now since I'm quite sure they have some marginal personality types who are parked on the lot with guns. It ignores the state history with CCW to think it is going to be a big problem. And it is very frustrating that Whirlpool decided to take it to federal court. It's a state law, why didn't they go to state court? Because they would have lost and they knew it! So they go running to the Feds. Where they will eventually lose. All they will have done is anger a bunch of their own employees and a bunch of law abiding Okies who are getting sick of all this obstructionism.

Gregg
 
F4GIB said:
Think about this for a moment. There is much more at stake here than on-the-job conduct or property rights. It's your very security.

Most CCW holders work. If they can ban you from carrying at work, AND you can't store you gun in your vehicle, the practical effect of the ban is to prohibit carry everywhere. At a minimum you are disarmed to and from work (and every place you visit in between). Practically, with a work ban, you get to carry only on weekends.

P. S. Whirlpool makes Kitchen-Aid appliances. Avoid them too.
Click to expand...

Sure. Working in the Pentagon, I am essentially banned from CCW during the week. I don't like it, but I don't dislike it enough to stop doing what I like doing. Do I think it's stupid? Yes. (I'm starting to sound like my boss, huh?) Inside the perimeter, there is no threat that a concealed pistol would defeat. Commuting 45 miles each way I go through some places where it might. So balance is called for.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
2 Points here.

1) It is called Consealed Carry for a reason. If you feel that you need to be packing then deal with the consequences, take one for the team and set a leagal precident.

2) It is not possible to boycott every organization that offends your sence of right and wrong. Try as you might your list will get prohibitively long. I'm not saying to stop but THEY know that you will pick and choose who to boycott and who not to.
 
Yup, condition of employment - they say they can search my car anytime they like. They can't actually do that but, if I decline that's the last day I work there. I decided that with the armed guards (and the money they pay me) to take the risk and leave them at home. Can't park off company property (gov't property) since that would mean over a mile walk to the plant.

The policy didn't stop that wacko in Meridan, MS from bringing it onto company property and shooting several people. I did get a new pamphlet about violence in the workplace, though - maybe that will stop it.
 
Can Whirlpool dictate who packs on its property? Yep.

Can Whirlpool dictate who packs off its property? Nope.

Does Whirlpool's ban on property by default cause a ban on packing off its property (as in commuting to and from work)? That's what the suit if for.

My problem is not private property rights. My problem is the lack of redress against the banning company should violence take place and I was injured because I was prohibited from protecting myself. One, just one good lawsuit will stop this crap cold.
 
My wife and I are from Tulsa, and we live/work there. My wife's employer has a similar policy, but it has not stopped her from carrying outside of work and leaving the pistol in her truck at work. For us it boils down to this...her life is unfathomably more important than her job. Additionally, she is often the last person to leave the facility, frequently after dark, and she travels between two facilities, neither of which are in the greatest of neighborhoods. One facility has a joke of a security guard. A man in his mid-60s, unarmed, that works from 8-5. He sits in a booth at one entrance of said facility that has no gates, no fence, and several entrances. He doesn't check IDs, there are no parking permits, etc. My wife asked about this 'security' and was told that they kept him on because he worked there 'forever' and they couldn't bring themselves to fire him. This law protects her right to defend herself. I'm all for property rights, but as it has been pointed out, this parking-lot policy would leave her with no viable option to defend herself while commuting. If there is ever a stink over her CCW, she will be requesting an armed security officer escort her to, from, and between the facilities, followed by a letter of resignation if they refuse :neener: I'm not sure what real impact it would have, but at least it would make clear the true effect of their policy and make them scramble to replace her. Man, this stuff gets me fired up.

Brad
 
Go to the legislature. To the CCW friendly legislators. Ask about a bill that recognizes the property rights but also makes the property owner responsible and liable for the safety of any person with a CCW that that property owner requires to disarm themselves. In the case of a place of employment, this would extend from the time the employee left home to go to work, while at work, and until that employee returned home from work at the end of a shift.

With rights comes responsibilities. If I require a person to disarm themselves before coming into my house then I am accepting total responsibility for their defense. I'm not going to accept such an onerous responsibility. If I can't trust you armed then I can't trust you at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
(OK) Whirlpool dropping out of suit?
Replies
18
Views
977
another okie
A
R
  • Locked
Legal contest: gun rights v. property owner rights
Replies
18
Views
1K
dustind
D
D
  • Locked
Judge Nixes Oklahoma's Guns-in-Locked-Cars Law
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
156
Views
8K
Art Eatman
A
I
  • Locked
Okla. Law Allows Guns on Company Property
Replies
2
Views
406
Aguila Blanca
A
W
  • Locked
Oklahoma Recognize All State Licenses
Replies
11
Views
616
Carlos Cabeza
C
Back
Top