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."
They do. The outer skin of the guys automobile is the limit of the company's "property right". The interior space is NOT the company's, but belongs to the owner of the car.
If the car owner is stopped by police, they had better have or get a warrant if they want to search the interior. The company has no right to make such searches, either.
The new law is "right on".
What? You were making your case. I asked a question. The burden lies on you, my friend.
What if the gov't favored anti-gun kompanies, and penalized pro-gun companies? Then you'd have the gov't banning guns via 3rd party, which is just as illegal as if they did it themsevles.
Now obviously, you aren't going to find federal statues favoring "anti-gun" over "pro-rights" companies, but federal laws and regulation DO favor larger korporations over smaller ones. And the former tend to be much more anti-gun than the latter.
There has to be a balancing of rights, and it seems to me that a private property owner has the right to determine who or what comes on to his property. Forget that it's a company. It's still private property. Think of it as your own home and tell me what say you have in determining what goes on there. You can invite people in to your home but you can dictate on what terms they can come in. You can say they must remove their muddy shoes, or they have to leave their dog outside, or they can't come in armed if you don't want them to. You have the say. It's your castle. How can I be wrong in this?
You want it all, that's the problem.
The law should have established an employees right to privacy in his locked vehicle on private property, subject to a law enforcement search with a warrant.
So9
I'm saying there is a huge difference between the private property of Joe Six Pack, and the property of a business that is open to the public or that employees workers.
For example, I can tell a woman I bring home to either walk around naked in my house, or leave. Any employer can not do this.
If you want to start a coporation, (which in and of itself is only possible because of state charters), then you have to submit to state laws. And any law that protects individual Rights is not only legitimate, but also worthy of praise.
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 scenario....
If the gentleman was to sit in his car with the windows rolled up and the doors locked 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?
In short, I have the legal right to know what people bring on to my property, and if they don't like it they can leave. Not so?
They should have made it include everything, not just guns.
Do you concede that I'm right?
No you don't
It is a Fourth Amendment issue.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What right does a company have to search private vehicles? Absent probably cause, not even the police have that right.
Perzactly....In Virginia (mentioned by someone else on here, also), teachers may not carry a gun, nor have it in their vehicles on school property, but no one can search the vehicle of the teacher without a warrant.
DITTO!!!
Turning away people coming IN your house with a firearm with alcohol being served is one thing, but taking your dog OUTSIDE and searching your guests vehicles (THEIR private property) for guns (or anything else) is another. THAT seems simple enough to me for anyone to understand.
No, you are not right. You have, however, been in New Jersey too long. The mindset about guns that seems to prevade that state shows through. Private property and the right to the means defend it is fundamental even if the private property is nothing more than the clothes on your back or the skin covering your body.
Both sides of this debate will lose unless one side overcomes its fear of the armed person.
You are confusing apples and oranges. Because you CAN, by law, have your property seized if someone brings drugs on there (if left in their vehicle, I'd say this is unlikely) does not make it RIGHT.
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.