Posted on 06/09/2005 7:10:04 PM PDT by Mulder
Fairfax, VA—Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry (D) signed into law today a National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed bill to prohibit employers from banning locked firearms in company parking lots. The law comes as an improvement of a similar bill passed last year, and is originally the result of last year’s firings of Weyerhauser employees for storing personal firearms in their cars on company property.
The new law provides employer liability protection against third party criminal acts, while allowing individual employees to sue their employer for non-compliance. In the event that an employee sues and wins the right to store a locked firearm in the company parking lot, the bill also requires the employer to cover court costs and attorney’s fees.
“We are pleased to see the State of Oklahoma guarantee such protection to law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “It’s a shame several honest citizens were wrongly fired from their jobs, but Oklahoma gun owners can now store their firearms without fear of reprisal from employers.”
The bill received overwhelming bi-partisan support in the state legislature, passing 95-5 in the State House and 44-0 in the Senate.
“NRA would like to thank all the pro-freedom legislators in Oklahoma City,” continued Cox. “We particularly want to thank Representative Greg Piatt (R) and Senator Jay Paul Gumm (D) for their leadership on this bill, and Governor Brad Henry for signing it into law.”
The RAT Henry only signed it because he is up for reelection and running scared since it looks like J.C. Watts is going to oppose him.
After the last election where the NRA endorsed the RAT Carson, NRA has almost zero credibility in Republican circles here in OK. Another case of Carson voting for NRA sponsored legislation because he wanted to run for Senator. Carson even remarked that he only puts his rifle in his old pick-up truck during election years for the NASCAR crowd.
Lot of Oklahomans left the NRA for GOA after they (NRA) wouldn't back off the Carson endorsement. Without the NRA firmly on his side, Dr. Coburn won handily and by the way Dr. Tom is a 2nd amendment supporter but from the NRA literature you never would have known it.
I'd like some examples of that because I've never heard of such an absurd thing.
And I've never worked for a small company.
What is it about "Shall Not Be Infringed" that causes Your confusion? No one is advocating expansion, just insisting on maintaining what is.
I'd like some examples of that because I've never heard of such an absurd thing.
You've never heard of local parking restrictions & tickets? - Hell, here in CA, even small companies are now being required to provide off street parking for employees, - or no business license..
If "corporations" do not have "rights" then Congress can "regulate" speech and content in a newspaper, Amendment I to the contrary?
That is not a rhetorical question.
A corporation is usually "owned" by individuals, as stockholders.
That is private property. There is no explicit or implied loss of constitutional rights just because you incorporate your business, your private property.
The corportation maintains and provides a parking lot on their corporate property. That is private property.
The employee probably signed an employment contract, of somekind, stating no guns on the private property.
Oklahoma has a Bill of Rights Article prohibiting the interfernce in the obligations of contracts.
Don't we want our government to protect our property rights and our contracts?
If you did not want guns on your home property and any individual drove into your driveway with a gun in their car or on their hip, as a private property owner, do you not have the right to ask them either remove the guns from your property or themselves from your property?
Of course you do.
On my property, I determine what rights will be exerted.
Their is a stronger constitutional case for the right to bear arms in court room than on private property. A court room is public property.
Its a wise decision, especially seeing that no individuals 'private property' right is being violated.
What's 'private' about a parking lot?
There is no explicit or implied loss of constitutional rights just because you incorporate your business, your private property.
Nor do employees lose rights just because of your fears of what might happen on your private property.
The corportation maintains and provides a parking lot on their corporate property [for employee use] . That is private property.
Yep, private property which is not misused by locked cars which contain guns.
The employee probably signed an employment contract, of somekind, stating no guns on the private property.
Coerced, - void contract, - as you cannot be forced to 'sign away' an inalienable right.
Oklahoma has a Bill of Rights Article prohibiting the interfernce in the obligations of contracts.
And in this instance they are doing the right thing for employees who are not obliged to honor coerced contracts which infringe on their RKBA's.
Don't we want our government to protect our property rights and our contracts?
Yes of course. -- Why do you want companies that ban guns?
If you did not want guns on your home property and any individual drove into your driveway with a gun in their car or on their hip, as a private property owner, do you not have the right to ask them either remove the guns from your property or themselves from your property?
A company parking lot is not "your home property".
Sure, an individual at home has that right, but why would I want to disarm invited employees or guests?
On my property, I determine what rights will be exerted.
Be careful about shooting that armed trespasser, -- you might be convicted of a murder.
Their is a stronger constitutional case for the right to bear arms in court room than on private property. A court room is public property.
There is a strong constitutional case for the right to bear arms on all property. To my mind, searching everyone for pocket knives is a gross violation of privacy & our RKBA's.
Way to go NRA!
No. Not because corporations have Rights, but because Congress does not have the enumerated power to do so.
Only individuals have Rights. Of course, individuals acting as a group still retain individual Rights (concurrent with individual responsilities). But the "group" in and of itself has no Rights.
Some groups, such as corporations, are granted special privlidges by the state, to operate under certain conditions. But those are privlidges, not Rights.
Furthermore, I would even make the case that the corporate media has done more to subvert Free speech in this country than the Congress has done.
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.