In Oklahoma, a Ban On Guns Pits State Against Big Firms (Weyerhaeuser Fired Workers w guns in Cars)

WSJ ^ | Nov. 26, 2004 | SUSAN WARREN

[FairOpinion]

VALLIANT, Okla. -- In late summer of 2002, Steve Bastible put three bullets into a dying cow at his ranch, threw the emptied rifle behind the seat of his pickup and forgot about it.

A few weeks later, the rifle cost him his job of 23 years.

That Oct. 1, in a surprise search, Weyerhaeuser Co. sent gun-sniffing dogs into the parking lot of its paper mill here. Mr. Bastible and 11 other workers were fired after guns were found in their vehicles. The timber company said the weapons violated a new company policy that extended a longtime workplace gun ban to the parking area. The fired workers said they knew nothing of the new rule.

The firings outraged many in this wooded community in the foothills of the Ouachita Mountains. In rural Oklahoma, carrying a firearm in one's car is commonplace. "In Oklahoma, gun control is when you hit what you shoot at," says Jerry Ellis, a member of the state legislature.

Now, the dispute is reverberating beyond the borders of tiny Valliant, located in the southeast corner of the state. In response, the state legislature overwhelmingly passed a law giving Oklahomans the right to keep guns locked in their cars in parking lots. But just days before the law was to go into effect this month, several prominent companies with Oklahoma operations, including Whirlpool Corp. and ConocoPhillips sued to stop it. A federal judge put the law on hold pending a hearing.

[mil-vet]

Truth is that barring weapons does nothing to prevent same from being used, it only makes it easier for a sicko to "go postal" successfully (as in Massachusetts a year or so ago). This is a simple fact all but the gun grabbers know and understand as "obvious to the most casual observer!".

Additionally, as long as the weapon is in one's vehicle, there should be LESS than no problem. Weyerhaeuser in now on my boycot list. Act stupid, suffer consequences. Dixie chicks, Target stores.....the list goes on.

[Dog Gone]

When you're arguing with someone who uses "statist" to describe someone who advocates state's rights, you're just not going to have a productive argument.

[BOOTSTICK]

This is a similar thread about some bozos in N.H. who thought they had a right to open carry in private retail businesses..they don't!. You don't like your employers policy about guns, go work somewhere else and stop whining!

[BOOTSTICK]

As a business owner, I will be the one who decides who will ahve a gun and who won't. As it is now I have decided that only I may armed in my business, and none of my employees and none of my customers may be armed in my business,and I and my insurance provider like it that way! If my customers or employees don't like it they can walk!

[Modok]

I take it that your business is properly posted to indicate your dislike of gun owners.

[retyered]

States Rights advocates [STa for short] start with the erroneous premise that the Constitution defines only the powers of the Federal government.

Not true, as evidenced by numerous restrictions on State powers in the body of the Constitution, culminating in the supremacy clause of Art VI. The word "statist" is used inappropriately and has no bearing on the matter.

I use "statist" to describe those who advocate "States Rights". Hereinafter I'll term them 'SRa'. No state has the power to ignore the US Constitutional rights of individuals.

The Constitution is also the document which describes the Fed gov, not State govs.

It restricts State powers in many of its sections.

The States created the Constitution and the fed gov, not the other way around.

Sure, the people of the States created the Constitution and the fed gov, not the other way around. Is that an issue?

The 14th amend was created to apply protection to fed recognized rights that were being violated by the States.

Protection of our RKBA's was a prominent concern of the 14ths ratification debate.

That amend. extends protection of rights from State and private violation. Incorporation is just the piecemeal inclusion of particular rights one at a time, per each SCOTUS

"Incorporation" is a legal fiction, instituted in part to allow States to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.

______________________________________

Now, if the nitpicking by States Rights advocates is out of the way, perhaps the points at issue could be addressed.

[Oberon]

The truth is that we don't need weapons in the workplace...and we all know this.

Oh? While you're at it, could you list all the other places that we all know we don't need weapons?

It would make my life a lot easier, because I could just stay in all those places, and I'd never have to worry about self-defense.

[retyered]

This is a similar thread about some bozos in N.H. who thought they had a right to open carry in private retail businesses..they don't!.
You don't like your employers policy about guns, go work somewhere else and stop whining!

As a business owner, I will be the one who decides who will ahve a gun and who won't.

As it is now I have decided that only I may armed in my business, and none of my employees and none of my customers may be armed in my business,and I and my insurance provider like it that way! If my customers or employees don't like it they can walk!
244 bootstick

---

Is your business required by law to have an employee parking lot?

Do you think you have the right to forbid your employees to carry a legal weapon on the way to or from work?

If you do, why?

[Lion Den Dan]

If my customers or employees don't like it they can walk! +++++++++++

I won't be crossing your threshold. Your profits can walk too.

[stevie_d_64]

"Any idiot who doesn't have or can't keep positive control of their firearm(s) shouldn't be allowed to own one."

You know, thats a pretty harsh statement to make...

Some of us (you label as idiots) do the best we can in regards to our choice to carry a firearm for personal safety...

Thats why number one, I don't talk about the issue at all with ANY co-worker, even if I know they are "pro" to the issue...

Number two...If I have to leave it in the vehicle, thats why I have a small safe under the seat that keeps it "relatively unaccessable" to anyone but me...

Number three...If for some reason a company I work for decides to orgasm enough to think they have to search vehicles for "guns", to me is not worth working for anymore...So I end up not really worrying about all of this until it looks like it'll happen...There are ways to read the tea leaves and sense if something like that will happen...

Number four...Your tone indicates that you must have the ability to carry anytime and anywhere you see fit to do so...So the rest of us who have to adapt and overcome the "idiots" who force us to do the things you consider idiotic must still garner disdane and disrespect from you I suppose...

I sure would like to know what utopia you live in that apparently allows you unrestrictive freedom to do this...I may consider moving there...Then we may all be in trouble...

Later,
Steve

[stevie_d_64]

Ahhhh, R.I., the center of the universe when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues...

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/rhode+island

Later,
Steve

[humblegunner]

I have a really neat cabinet at the office.
It's quite secure, and has all kinds of FEDEX boxes and whatnot in it.

Even preprinted airwaybills with our account number on them,
so I'm compelled to keep it locked up. Boy is it ever a mess in there.

[Dog Gone]

Now, if the nitpicking by States Rights advocates is out of the way, perhaps the points at issue could be addressed.

I will try not to lose patience with you the way I did yesterday.

You are free to believe what you want about how the constitutional structure was set up, and you can believe that state rights are somehow disdainful.

I'm here to tell you how things are. Just recently, the US Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment had not been incorporated against the states.

You can rant about incorporation being a legal fiction all you want. It makes no difference. It's the way things are, and if you want to change it you'll have to work within the established legal precedents.

If your state wants to outlaw guns entirely, they can legally do so today. It will require a Supreme Court decision stating that the Second Amendment applies to state government in order to change that.

Legal reality does exist.

[retyered]

Now, if the nitpicking by States Rights advocates is out of the way, perhaps the points at issue could be addressed.

You are free to believe what you want about how the constitutional structure was set up,

I don't have to "believe". I can read its actual structure in just 41 pages of my Cato handbook.

and you can believe that state rights are somehow disdainful.

States have powers, as per the Constitution, some of which are prohibited to them. [see the 10th] I see no powers that are "disdainful".
Claiming a 'right' to ban weapons is disdainful though, for sure.

I'm here to tell you how things are.

I know how "things are", according to you. We disagree on most 'States Rights' questions.

Just recently, the US Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment had not been incorporated against the states.

'Incorporation' is a construct of the Court. It has no Constitutional basis. It's not a real part of "how things are."

You can rant about incorporation being a legal fiction all you want. It makes no difference. It's the way things are, and if you want to change it you'll have to work within the established legal precedents.

So you claim. Others differ. The question will be settled if and when the US Supreme Court claims that the Second Amendment has not been 'incorporated', thus is invalid in the States of the Union.
I guarantee you, such a decision would not stand.

If your state wants to outlaw guns entirely, they can legally do so today.

Let them try. They will lose, legally.

It will require a Supreme Court decision stating that the Second Amendment applies to state government in order to change that. Legal reality does exist.

Your view of "reality" is very questionable.

[Dog Gone]

You want to believe that reality doesn't exist because it doesn't fit into your view of how things ideally should be.

I don't even think we disagree with how things ideally should be. Where we disagree is what the reality today really is.

In your world, there are no valid gun control laws in places like New York, DC, or California. The reality is that those laws do exist and you will go to jail for violating them. And that will always be the case until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. If they ever do.

Legal reality. It may bite, but it is what it is, and we have to deal with it.

[retyered]

I don't even think we disagree with how things ideally should be. Where we disagree is what the reality today really is.

We disagree on ideals, Constitutional ideals. Yesterday you wrote:

If you want to maintain your delusions over what the Constitution requires, it's fine with me. Live in some fanstasy world where states can't pass gun control laws.
They can, and you know why? Of course you don't.
Ther reason is that the Second Amendment has never been extended to the states, like other Amendments.

The reality is, our Constitutions 2nd Amendment is the supreme law, and needs no 'extension' to apply to States that infringe upon our RKBA's.

Why does anyone want to live in some fantasy world where it is Constitutional for States to pass gun control laws?

[Dog Gone]

Because they can under current case law. That's not fantasy. It's reality.

It's just ridiculous that you call present day reality a "fantasy world." It's insane.

I didn't make these rules. But at least I recognize them for what they are. You should do the same.

[aragorn]

Sometimes, you just have to do what seems right, even if its not the easy thing to do, and hope everything works out for the best.

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I was not here to answer back right away - family responsibilities, ya know.

As an aside, I have a lot to be thankful for this year - last Thanksgiving I was in Kabul. Last Christmas, too.

[BOOTSTICK]

Correct. I have a sign posted "ONLY THE PROPRIOTOR AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS MAY BE ARMED ON THIS PREMISIS",Keeps me happy, keeps my insurance company happy.