Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work
Telegraph ^ | 11/12/04 | Alec Russell in Valliant and Scott Heiser in Washington

Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo

Gun-toting, tough-talking, and anti-establishment to his muddy boot straps, Larry Mullens is an Oklahoman "good ole boy" personified.

He is also fast becoming a classic American folk hero as he takes centre stage in a revolt of gun owners that is reverberating in boardrooms across the United States. The son of one of the last of the old-style Wild West ranchers, he first fired a gun as a boy.

Now he carries his trusty Winchester in his pick-up on his way to work at a sawmill in case he comes across a coyote, a wild dog or even a wolf attacking his small herd of steers. Last year he lost five calves to wild dogs.

So it was perhaps not surprising that he was enraged when his previous employer fired him for breaking company security rules that banned guns from the company car park after they found a .38 pistol stashed behind the seat of his pick-up.

No one could have predicted that two years later he and his backers would claim an extraordinary revenge - a law allowing employees to keep guns in locked cars on company property.

Just two days after a gunman jumped on to a stage in Columbus, Ohio, and shot dead a heavy metal guitarist and three others before himself being shot dead, it might seem surprising to hear that elsewhere a state is extending gun owners' rights.

But in Oklahoma, as across much of rural America, gun control is seen as the work of naive and meddling minds.

"Having a gun is no different from having a hammer. It is just a tool," said Jerry Ellis, a Democratic representative in the state legislature who drafted and pushed through the law.

"Here, gun control is when you hit what you shoot at."

The passage of the law resounded like one of Larry Mullens's Winchester rifle shots through the boardrooms of America.

In recent years companies have been implementing anti-gun policies in an attempt to cut down on violence at the work place.

Now they fear the Oklahoman ruling will encourage the powerful gun lobby all over America to try to roll back the reforms.

Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says.

"It's the most irresponsible piece of legislation I've seen in my 25 years in the business," he said. "I would invite anyone who'd allow people to bring firearms to work to write the first death notice.

"The argument that emp-loyees should be allowed to bring firearms to work because they'll be locked in the car is so absurd it barely merits a response."

Several companies are trying to block the law. Two days before it was due to come into force last month, a judge granted a temporary restraining order preventing it from taking effect. The next hearing is on Tuesday.

But the firms are fighting on unfavourable terrain. Contrary to the widespread impression that the nation is polarised between gun-loving Republicans and more liberal Democrats, in the heartland gun control spans party lines. The law passed unanimously in Oklahoma's Senate and by 92 votes to four in the House.

Mike Wilt, a Republican, voted against the law, not on security grounds but because he believes the state should not dictate gun policies to property owners. "Here in Oklahoma the issue of guns is not a wedge issue," he said. "We all go hunting together and we all tend to have the same beliefs."

Two weeks ago one of the principal plaintiffs, Whirlpool, a prominent supplier of white goods, withdrew from the case. It said it was satisfied that its ban on guns on its property was not affected. The gun lobby suspects that the decision had more to do with talk of a boycott of the firm.

Nowhere do feelings run more strongly than in Valliant, a small town where, on Oct 1, 2002, at the Weyerhaeuser paper mill, the row began.

Mr Mullens was one of four on-site employees who were sacked after guns were found in their vehicles in contravention of a new company ruling. They are convinced it was just an excuse to lay off workers and insist they did not know about the new security laws.

The firm, which is locked in litigation with the fired employees, rejects the charges and says everyone knew it had a zero-tolerance approach to security. "You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser," said Jim Keller, the firm's senior vice-president. "Safety is our number one priority.

"It's more important to tell someone they don't have a job than to have to tell a family that their loved one is not coming home from work. This is about safety; it's not about guns."

But the people of Valliant, where the high school closes down during the prime week in the deer-hunting season to allow pupils to shoot, will not be easily assuaged.

James Burrell, an assistant at the local gun shop, said: "Most people around here think the new law is already a right."

Mr Mullens has now found a new job, where his employer is less pernickety.

"People tell me to 'stick to my guns' because they are all carrying one too," he said. "The bottom line is that it is our constitutional right to have a gun in the car."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; weyerhaeuser; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 841-856 next last

1 posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:05 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

The firm, which is locked in litigation with the fired employees, rejects the charges and says everyone knew it had a zero-tolerance approach to security. "You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser," said Jim Keller, the firm's senior vice-president. "Safety is our number one priority.

====

Mr. Keller sounds like a clueless anti-gunner.


2 posted on 12/11/2004 6:13:03 AM PST by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Now he carries his trusty Winchester in his pick-up on his way to work at a sawmill in case he comes across a coyote, a wild dog or even a wolf attacking his small herd of steers.
We don't NEED a reason to carry a firearm.
3 posted on 12/11/2004 6:13:11 AM PST by jcparks (LFOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

I think private property rights have to come first. The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.


4 posted on 12/11/2004 6:15:37 AM PST by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jcparks
From the article per Mr. Keller.

This is about safety; it's not about guns."

mockinglyYeah, sure it is.

5 posted on 12/11/2004 6:21:50 AM PST by Modok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.

Agreed. I think firing an employee is a bit extreme, especially for a first offense, but the sanctity of private property must ultimately prevail.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to protest, but not on your front lawn.

6 posted on 12/11/2004 6:26:17 AM PST by MrJingles ("Oderint dum metuant" ---Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

The issue is not 2nd ammendment rights but property rights....The man was not arrested, he was fired. He knew the rules of employment and was on the company property.

That stated, try this scenario.....

If the gentleman was to stand in the company parking lot and complain bitterly and loudly about the company, it's management and policies would he expect to be fired or would he claim it's his 1st ammendment rights?

Try this at your employer and see if you make it till Christmas....

This is not any different for 2nd Ammendment rights....Next time, he should try to park at the curb...

NeverGore :^)


7 posted on 12/11/2004 6:26:29 AM PST by nevergore (“It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stingray51


8 posted on 12/11/2004 6:28:05 AM PST by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Just two days after a gunman jumped on to a stage in Columbus, Ohio, and shot dead a heavy metal guitarist and three others before himself being shot dead, it might seem surprising to hear that elsewhere a state is extending gun owners' rights.

Only a liberal would find this surprising.

But in Oklahoma, as across much of rural America, gun control is seen as the work of naive and meddling minds.

A naive and meddling mind - somebody like, say, a liberal?

In recent years companies have been implementing anti-gun policies in an attempt to cut down on violence at the work place.

At least the author made the agenda clear in this sentence.

Now they fear the Oklahoman ruling will encourage the powerful gun lobby all over America to try to roll back the reforms.

Gun control is never about repressing our rights. It's always about the holy, righteous, lofty goal of "reform".

Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says.

And I'm sure, if you dig into the statistics, that the real story is that he's counting cops, security guards, EMT's, convenience store clerks and other high risk occupations. Nice try, but we won't be fooled by this bu!!$h!t any more.

9 posted on 12/11/2004 6:33:50 AM PST by Hardastarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
No gun law will stop a determined murderer.


BUMP

10 posted on 12/11/2004 6:40:29 AM PST by tm22721 (In fac they)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

Like to list the dozens?hundreds? of government rules and laws about what you cannot or can do or have on your private property ?
You can't fire someone for a number of personal reasons as long as they are doing the work they are being payed to perform. No where was there mention of threats or worker problems. Besides, maybe if employers didn't crap on their workers with strait-jacket policies there would be way fewer disgruntled workers !
The other poster's example of firing a person who loudly complained and criticized an employer in the parking lot falls because that could be constued as an example of abuse whereas the guns were not flaunted or misused according to the story.


11 posted on 12/11/2004 6:43:12 AM PST by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
Of course the government violates private property rights in many ways. That's my whole point. This law is another example of it.

I'm as big a Second Amendment supporter as anyone, but private property rights have to take precedence.

12 posted on 12/11/2004 6:47:12 AM PST by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

bump


13 posted on 12/11/2004 6:47:22 AM PST by RippleFire ("It was just a scratch")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says.

This idiot really believes that by preventing sane, rational people from defending themselves, the insane and irrational will just quit and go home.

"Hey, I can't barge into that office and start shooting! Its a gun free work place and I'm not allowed to!"

Or

"Hey, I can't barge into that office and start shooting, someone might shoot me!"

Which office is safer, you imbecile?

14 posted on 12/11/2004 6:47:45 AM PST by Al Gator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
If an individual citizen can't carry a gun that he owns, in a vehicle that he owns, then both the 2nd and the 4th amendments are meaningless.

If the kompany doesn't want weapons in his vehicle, they should 1) pay for his car, 2) pay for his driving time and expenses to and from work, and 3) guarantee his security at work, and while driving to and from work.

Korporate anti-gun policies are simply another assault on our individual Rights. Since the gov't is unable (at least today) to ban guns, they simply get so-called "private" companies to do it. Many of these same "private" kompanies are staffed with former fed bureacrats, and many others receive some sort of federal subsidy. So they are able to get away with enacting these anti-gun edicts.

As for those that are going to post about "private property" here, I suspect that they would be the first in line to applaud the state kicking down my door for playing my music too loud or not paying my taxes on my "private property".

15 posted on 12/11/2004 6:54:04 AM PST by Mulder (“The spirit of resistance is so valuable, that I wish it to be always kept alive" Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
I think private property rights have to come first. The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.

I KNOW God-given RIGHTS come first, last, and in any between. The Second Amendment GUARANTEES ALL other rights. Be gone Chicken Little you statist dweeb.

16 posted on 12/11/2004 6:54:45 AM PST by S.O.S121.500 (Opposite of Right -___________*___________-is Just Wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
I'm as big a Second Amendment supporter as anyone, but private property rights have to take precedence

So I can count on you to grab a rifle and help me defend my property should I ever decide to stop paying taxes on my "private property"?

Thanks in advance!

17 posted on 12/11/2004 6:55:35 AM PST by Mulder (“The spirit of resistance is so valuable, that I wish it to be always kept alive" Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nevergore
If the gentleman was to stand in the company parking lot and complain bitterly and loudly about the company, it's management and policies would he expect to be fired or would he claim it's his 1st ammendment rights?

Apples and oranges. One relates to his actions while at work, the other relates to his private contents in his private vehicle.

18 posted on 12/11/2004 6:59:09 AM PST by Mulder (“The spirit of resistance is so valuable, that I wish it to be always kept alive" Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

Yes, but whose private property rights? Seems to me that since the automobile is the employee's private property, he has the right to keep a piece locked up in it.

You do raise a good point, though, one I hadn't thought about...it's a bit more complicated issue than it looks at first glance.

}:-)4


19 posted on 12/11/2004 6:59:38 AM PST by Moose4 ("Frrrrrrrrrp." --Livingston the Viking Kitty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nevergore

I agree that on the owner's property their property rights should be supreme - in most cases. The problem is where those property rights interfere with another's rights off the property. An owner's right to dictate behavior of visitors on their property does not extend to a grant of immunity from liability for the effective disarming of the individuals who visit the property where the individual's disarmament results in the individual being unable to protect themselves off the property. Besides, in the real world, this feel good "no guns allowed" knee jerk reaction only makes victims of people who otherwise might be able to fight back - the homicidal maniacs obviously don't care about being fired by the time they go on their rampage.


20 posted on 12/11/2004 7:00:25 AM PST by Abogado (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 841-856 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson