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."
You would have a fight on your hands if you tried to search my car. Of course that would mean you would kick me off under the assumption, that I was carrying, which is your right. I am pretty sure you have NO right to search MY private property.
Yup. That's exactly it.
If a company bans Muslims in their employment from bringing a Q'uran on to their property, will you stand in defense of those Muslim's First Amendment rights?
Or will you be defending the Company's property rights?
...crickets...
I'm not surprised. Way to go, Luis, in asking the correct question. Cast the same issue as being against the favorite whipping boy around here, and all of a sudden that side of the argument is nowhere to be found.
The same has happened in every dictatorship throughout history. NOw you are on their side? That is rather telling...
That is an excellent example of how guns save lives. This happens all the time but is rarely recognized. I do not go anywhere with out my gun and although I believe business owners can make decisions on who to hire I will not go anywhere my gun is not allowed (except places where there are armed protecters. ie the Capitol). The right to keep and bear arms is a very important theme.
Confusing in most cases but .....no it's still just a simple personal property rights issue. Our, yours or mine , RKBA's does not trump our property rights if our firearm is kept in our personal (private property) vehicle.
... Where do ya draw the line ? ..... I believe the confusing issue here is commercial property vs personal property.
If your commercial property is gated, to control entry and clearly posted at the entrance that the following is prohibited ie cats , ugly trucks and firearms then cats , ugly trucks and firearms are legally prohibited regardless of state personal property or firearms or cat and ugly truck rights laws.
If your commercial property is not posted and entry physically controlled with a guard force or electronic security gates where anyone traversing your parking lot may come and go then they are subject to state and federal laws only with regards to what is or isn't contraband, allowed or prohibited in every personal vehicle.
Chicken little aside......that's how it is as I have enforced, encounterd and entertained it on private, commercial and federal property present and past.
You disarm me. You are culpable. Only the 9th Circuit or Bill Clinton could twist the logic of it to mean anything else.
Guess you have'nt read all the posts, the point being where the employer has a posted sign, or in the company handbook, that "WEAPONS ARE NOT ALLOWED" AND " ALL VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH" does the employee have the right to search your private vehicle.
Not so, you need to bone up on your states gun laws, you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IF THE OWNER DECIDES SO!
Yes.
Wrong. You seem to be blind to the word "unreasonable" that the Founders (genuflect) wrote in there in the Fourth Amendment (genuflect again).
First off, as many have tried to tell you people of the course of the several threads, the Constituition (genuflect) limits government actions, not acts of a private being.
Secondly, when the employment contract specifically allows for searches...then even if was a government searching then it wouldn't require a warrant because you signed that consent to get the job.
If I was an employer, I wouldn't ban my employees from keeping guns in their cars. It's a dumb policy, but employers are free to enact dumb policies.
There is another aspect of this issue to consider. When someone invites you onto their private property, they also invite some of your rights to come along with you. Otherwise, they would be perfectly within their rights to put video cameras in the ladies' restroom in violation of their female employee's right to a certain amount or privacy, etc. Do you see where I'm going with this?
So, I believe this is far more complicated that a simple matter of the employer's property rights and the resolution of it will rely on how well the employer conveyed their rules to the employees (did they sign an agreement not to bring weapons onto company property?) and where the state law stands on the right to carry a weapon in your car?
That is actually quite legal, so long as you inform your employees of the practice.
Thanks A. Patriot. The only story I could remember when I posted was the Virginia Law School incident. I was unsure if the other incident I was trying to remember was in Arkansas or Mississippi. The article you sent me clears it up. Thanks again.
I see what you are saying - but, let's alter the sceanario a bit. Let's say the company requires physical work of their female employees and provide shower facilities they can use before they go home AND they put cameras in the female shower area. The female employees have a reasonable expectation that their shower will not end up on an internet porn site - their right to a certain amount of privacy did not fall out of their car when they entered company property.
As stated earlier, this issue is a bit more complicated than it appears and I believe it will go against the employers if they try to enforce arbitrary rules?
I still think that would be legal, so long as the employees are informed ahead of time and both men and women are treated the same way. You may be able to make the argument that this behavior creates a hostile work environment.
The female employees have a reasonable expectation that their shower will not end up on an internet porn site
Depends on whether or not they agreed, ahead of time, to have their shower scenes posted on the internet. Without their consent, posting pictures of other prople on the internet is probably illegal and is almost certainly a tort.
As stated earlier, this issue is a bit more complicated than it appears and I believe it will go against the employers if they try to enforce arbitrary rules?
Generally speaking, your employer can pass completely irrational, arbitrary rules if he wants, so long as they don't discriminate based on race, gender etc. A crazy boss could require that everyone who works for him must dress up like a giant pink bunny rabbit and fire you if you refused.
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.