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."
The only rights being attacked here, are the property rights of the business owner, whose rights to control access and use of his own property is being overturned by the Federal government in favor of the communal belief that you are entitled to property rights on someone else's property.
===
Because someones property is parked on your property does not make the other persons property yours. It is still theirs, not yours. You may ask them to remove their property off of your property, but you have no rights to enter what is theirs what is in their property. You are violating their property rights if you do, whether the law allows you to do so or not. You want all the respect for your rights but offer no respect for the property rights of others in return.
But the Second Amendment is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that doesn't talk about the Government. The 1st Amendment says the CONGRESS shall make no law ... The 3rd talks about the military quartering soldiers in private homes. The 4th is protection against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
But the Second Amendment quite simply says ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I read that to mean that no one can infringe that right. Not the government nor anyone else.
So I think it's a mistake to assume a unenumerated right takes precedence over the most broadly defined of all the enumerated ones.
Never post while putting up Christmas decorations!
===
Because someones property is parked on your property does not make that persons property yours. It is still theirs, not yours. You may ask them to move their property off of your property and they should comply, but you have no rights to enter their property. You are violating their property rights if you enter their property. You want all people to respect your property rights but offer no respect for the property rights of others.
You, me, and anyone else that has read and understood the Constitution and the writings of the Founders.
The Powers that Be have a vested interest in keeping us vulnerable and compliant. By hook or by crook.
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
Your statement was that we are ALL bound to protect the Constitution is false, ---
The apparent lack of consistent logic in your reply makes it difficult to respond however note the following points.
1. The "employer" didn't pass a law, simply set requirements for conduct and allowed behavior on it's property.
2. The "employee" can park his car at the curb and not on the employers property.
3. The "employee" was well aware of his employers requirements while on "company" property.
4. Just because the "employer" allows private vehicles on company property does not mean you can carry anything in your vehicle while there.
If you do not like the conditions of employment set forth by your employer you can either seek to comply, change them or find a new job that meets your criteria.
Employers set many conditions of employment that I may not agree with or may not but it's their private property right. Dress, haircuts, general appearance, conduct etc.
Some, like Coke, set standards for off premises behavior such as if a Coke employee is seen drinking a Pepsi product in their off time the employee is subject to dismissal. You don't like these employment requirements, find another job. If this gentleman did not like the gun carry requirements of his employer, he didn't have to park on their property and could have parked at the curb.
BTW, I've carried concealed for 20+ years, a lifetime NRA member and a staunch defender of gun rights...but I never would carry my weapon onto someone else's private property after they stated I could not come on their property with a weapon, regardless of how I secured it.
NeverGore :^)
They don't, and I've never said that they do.
On another thread titled "Where does a company's right to prohibit guns stop?", my original response is still my position at this time:
"At the edge of their property."
A private business has the right not to allow you on their property with a weapon, and they do have the right to set work place regulations (please, don't start throwing up strawmen argument about rape and forced sex). So do government offices by way, try carrying a gun into a Federal Courthouse one of these days.
The employee's decision then becomes whether to NOT have a gun in their vehicle, to park the vehicle off premises, or to seek work elsewhere.
In order to protect free speech we have to accept (and defend) speech that we disagree with, in order to protect religious freedom we have to accept (and defend) religions that we find distasteful, in order to defend government by the people, we have to accept (and defend) the right of people with whom we disagree to participate in the electoral system, and in order to protect our own personal property rights, we have to accept (and defend) the ability of others to set conditions of access and use of their own property, even if we disagree with their conditions.
Hear, hear!!!
The Constitution is a document limiting the actions of government, and setting the standards on how it is run.
Get yourself educated...and while you're at it, learn some HTML.
The Constitution is citizens telling government how to do their job...in effect, the Constitution is the workplace rules set by the employers (the people) for the employees (the government).
If the employees violate the workplace rules set forth by the Constitution, they get fired.
You want to honor and defend the Constitution?
Honor and defend property rights.
So, you do agree then that the mere fact that your car is parked on my property does not give you property to my property, and with it the right to dictate conditions of access and use?
It does not make my property yours nor does it give you the right to know what it is. You are wanting to extend your rights to destroy mine. If I park my vehicle on your property, by what right do you have access to procedes of the sweat of my brow. If you do not like that and ask me to move my vehicle off your property I will move it, but you have no right to access the contents of it.
If your car is parked on my property will you let me search it? Do I or do I not have a right to search it? You seem to think that I do.
What you and others seem to be missing is that when you sign an agreement allowing your employer to search your car, or sign and agreement limiting what you can have in your vehicle, then you've VOLUNTARILY surrendered your right.
I believe that is a condition of employment at the NRA.
BS. It's simple contract law. You agree to abide by the conditions of the contract in order to park in your employer's lot. If you don't like the rules, pay the $5 and park in private lot.
I heard in san fran, they decided that having sex in a car was not the same as having sex in public, even if the car was on public property. in other words, your car is your own personal mobile house and that a private property bubble followed your vehicle wherever it went and so did your property rights.
Well, if that's how they see it, then they shouldn't be allowed to make any laws restricting guns in vehicles.
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.