Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules

The Tulsa World ^ | Oct. 7, 2007 | David Harper

[2Am4Sure]

A Tulsa federal judge has ruled against the state in its attempt to make sure employees can take guns onto their employers' property.

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.

Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.

Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."

[2Am4Sure]

The judge, of course, is a Clinton appointee.

[trumandogz]

interestingly, neither the First nor Second Amendments apply at the workplace.

[coloradan]

criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries

Let's see the evidence. In my world, the places with the most gun-related workplace injuries are gun-free zones: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Con-Agra Foods, Lockheed Martin, etc...

[Beagle8U]

I wonder if this same liberal twit judge would rule that employers could require that employees have no guns in their homes either?

My guess he could twist logic to fit that as well!

[Brilliant]

private property.

[Wolfie]

That calls for an intellectual consistency rarely seen in these parts.

[BearCub]

I don’t have a problem with an employer banning guns on it’s own property or property is has exclusive control over (like leased office space). I do have a problem with companies like mine, which prohibits guns in our cars parked in a multi-tenant parking garage.

[Beagle8U]

Private property also covers personally owned vehicles.

Leave them in your locked auto? Yes.

Bring them in the building? No.

Both retain their private property rights.

[NCLaw441]

You posted: I wonder if this same liberal twit judge would rule that employers could require that employees have no guns in their homes either?
***

Could you refuse to work for an employer who didn’t keep a gun in his home? Or would that be illegal? Could you refuse to work for an employer who DID keep a gun in his home? Or would THAT be illegal? I think it is perfectly legal to make that decision as an employee. Why, then, should an employer not be allowed to make the same decision? This also applies to smoking, drinking, bad language, playing frisbee or any other behavior. If it is important to either the employer or employee, each may base employment decisions on that issue. Freedom is a great thing when WE want to practice it, but sometimes less great when others want to do the same.

[elpinta]

What you said mostly.

Also, just as parents have the moral/legal obligation to protect their families, shouldn’t a private company that forbids legal weapons have the same obligation to protect those that enter?

Of course, private property is just that and we can chose to work there or not usually (I do/do not).

[mtbopfuyn]

Our “one time previous” doctor started questioning the kids one their first visit if we had guns in the house... see begining of sentence.

[Copernicus]

interestingly, neither the First nor Second Amendments apply at the workplace.

The original vision of the Founding Fathers like Jefferson, for example, was of a self sufficient,self reliant agrarian economy.

People WORKED, but they did not necessarily have JOBS (working for other people or worse, fictitious people known as corporations)

The Whiskey Rebellion was about exactly such an economy where farmers in Pennsylvania had everything they needed to live except cash-the one thing Hamilton's Federal Government demanded of them.

From then to now We The People have become more enslaved and more dependent.

Most people do not realize it, but your money (in Banks, in pension accounts, in real property)is not your money unless and until the Goobermint says it is your money.

So logically it is only a small step to extend rules to any area of your life and the Constitution at any time for any reason

Welcome to the future.

Best regards,

[Dead Corpse]

If you disarm me as a condition of employment, then you as my employer are now responsible for my security.

If you fail in this, and someone ignores all your idiotic little plastic signs and goes on a shooting spree on your now disarmed campus... I'll sue your butt back to the Stone Age.

[oyez]

He said disgruntled workers who shoot people in the workplace are going to do so no matter what laws are on the books.

Like some statements of a official piece of paper will stop somebody's rage. Geeze, another sitting duck situation.

[longtermmemmory]

result oriented rulings, how french.

[Dead Corpse]

Eh... I've tried to use the reasoning on here before. The gun haters here don't normally go for it. They'll come up with some specious reasoning that the Employer "owns" your car if it is parked in their parking lot. That your security to and from the job sight is none of the employers concern should you voluntarily disarm yourself.

So many moral holes in the disarmament argument I don't know why the hoplophobes don't just give up in shame.

[Copernicus]

I wonder if this same liberal twit judge would rule that employers could require that employees have no guns in their homes either? My guess he could twist logic to fit that as well!

Too late, that train of logic is already underway with smoking and health benefit premiums.

If firearms become the public health hazard the Clintigula Administration tried to make them, the employer can make it a condition of employment not to own any.

Welcome to the future.

Best regards,

[calex59]

Private Property

Maybe, but that isn't what the judge based his ruling on. Read the article, this is what he said: Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."

In other words he is saying the objectives of the federal government to disarm law abiding citizens overrides state powers(or rights if you prefer).

Besides being dead wrong about that, he is wrong about gun free zones having less violent crime than if people were freely armed.

Only a completely brain dead person would think that someone bent on killing others would hestitate to come to a place armed "because it is against the law". Therefore, this judge, and many others, only have one objective and that is to disarm the law abiding citizens so they can be more easily manipulated and forced into becoming good little communists.

[taxcontrol]

Actually, I don’t mind a private employer forbidding firearms on their property. I see that as an enforcement of private property rights. If I don't want you on my home with a firearm, I should have the right to enforce that provision.

However, there are to caveats:

1) The employer has no right to forbid firearms inside the person’s car as that is their private property.

2) The employer assumes full responsibility for their disarming policies. By that, I mean that if an employer chooses to require the disarming of employees, then they employer is LIABLE for any and all damages resulting from their failure to secure the employee from harm.

[OCCASparky]

I work at a nuclear power plant, so you can imagine their policy on people carrying guns onto plant property. Problem is, with the security guards capping themselves, I’m more worried about THEM than I am some disgruntled employee.