Posted on 10/07/2007 7:54:27 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...
You posted: So you’re saying that I can be denied employment based on my age, race, sex or religion. I don’t think so.
***
You can’t do those things, but it is not because of the Constitution it is because of federal laws passed.
Though not the source we are looking for, this link demonstrates the hyprocisy of such things.
Brandishing Firearm in City Council Session
During one loud session of the City Council, Tillman gained the attention of the entire floor when she produced a pistol from her handbag and brandished it about.[3] This led calls by some aldermen and Chicago citizens to call for a censure on Tillman’s professional ethics, and possible mandatory gun safety training. Tillman also opened herself up to charges of hypocrisy, as she is a well-known advocate of gun control, yet she personally possessed a pistol. Since Chicago has strict gun control laws, it has been also seen as elitist that she can take advantage of gun ownership (under Chicago law, aldermen are allowed to carry firearms) while Chicago citizens could not.
If your car is in my driveway, I can make demands on you. If you don’t like my demands you can park elsewhere.
If they don’t ban matches lighters, etc. I assume they don’t ban those darn mistake makers...pencils.
It is a sad world of personal politics we live in. These gun laws and smoking laws are simply trying to ban guns, cigarettes, etc.. We already have laws criminalizing the bad acts committed with these and other “physical things”.
Please don’t take my posts to you personally. I am only trying to point out the hyprocisy of gun and other “bans” to all.
I always compare these policies to an employer banning political or campaign literature in someone’s vehicle. Basically, these rules amount NOT just to workplace rules but make it so employees rights are infringed OUTSIDE of the workplace. It’s akin to saying you can’t bring a crucifix or Torah onto workplace property in your vehicle.
It’s nonsense and the federal rule illegally pre-empts the right of States to pass laws to settle questions like these.
Well, that may be your opinion, but in your world where only your opinions and your rights are considered it may be functional. What about the opinions and rights of your employer and his customers?
"In fact, having a number of armed employees around helps with over all security and is a freebee for the company."
Maybe so, but don't you think that is your employers decision and not yours?
"So... that leaves people like you with your general dislike of guns and fear of not being able to Lord over your employees like a petty dictator."
Ahhh, the ubiquitous FReeper knee jerk to reach for the ad hominum insult when losing an argument. How liberal of you.
BTW - I own 3 handguns (.380 Walther, 9mm Beretta, .357 Ruger with 6" barrel and full underlug) a .22 rifle for plinking, a .223 Galil and 9mmUzi (I'm a fan of IMI) and last week was out skeet and trap shooting. I am presently looking for a nice .40 to round out my pistol collection and maybe a 30-30 lever action for shooting coyotes on my ranch. Today I'm on my way to a local gun show.
I'm also an employer with hundreds of employees and don't allow any of them to carry while on duty. That's my choice and my decision. I do however, frequently take employees to the pistol range where I teach them gun basics and safety.
You on the other hand flap your gums on internet sites about that which you do not know.
“It a load of crap.”
Agreed, I see no property rights of your emploer here. My suggestion is to get the building managers statementin writing, keep your gun in your car and when you get fired sue the employer.
Can’t say how it will turn out, I don’t know any case law for this specific situation.
Owning and carrying are two different things.
Seeing as you're from California, I doubt the subject comes up much.
Lets see, the legislature wrote the law that this ‘judge’ spent 93 pages re-writing. Sounds a little ass backwards from my keyboard...
This is the unfortunate consequence of stupid rulings like this one. Instead of straightforward “we’re all adults here” approaches to security, some of us have to be deceitful. As far as I’m concerned, my “right” to defend myself is sacrosanct and irrevocable (except voluntarily).
I know people who carry (always have - always will) and are otherwise completely law-abiding. Because of dumbass rulings like these they are also practicing criminals.
Molan Labe!
As a private property owner, can you say no Negroes allowed? There may be a constitutional conflict with that one.
I believe that's the point being made by the posters when it comes to guns -- there may be a second amendment conflict. Pink, lacy underwear, on the other hand, doesn't seem to enjoy constitutional protection.
Unfortunately I'm in an 'at will' employment state. I can be fired for any reason (except narrowly defined civil-rights related reasons) or no reason.
As a practical matter, what they don't know won't hurt 'em.
Agreed. Owning is usually a prerequisite to carrying.
“As a private property owner, can you say no Negroes allowed? There may be a constitutional conflict with that one. “
I’m not a lawyer but I think there are two different things involved with the ‘no negros allowed’.
The Contitutional admendment disallowing discrimination based upon race applies to Government.
Federal and state laws apply to the private businesses.
I don’t think there are any laws regarding individuals discriminating against a race. ie. I can say ‘no negros allowed’ in my yard or house.
So with regard to the Second Admendment, the government is not allowed to ban gun ownership. But private business are covered not by the Constitution but by statues. And the government is prohibited by the Second Admendment from writing laws forcing private businesses to ban guns.
Ultimately, this means a business can ban anything for any reason or no reason as long as it doesn’t run afoul of the applicable laws.
The first & second amendments were in place before this company built the facility.
If, as an employer, I do not want you saying X, Y, or Z at work, you still have the right to say X, Y, and Z. I also have the right to fire you. If I, as the employer, do not want you to bring weapons or hotdogs to work, you still have the right to bring them. I also have the right to fire you.
***There’s a certain amount of inductive truth in that. The employer made a calculated gamble when he decided to set up shop in America, where the right to free speech is protected and so is gun ownership. But the employer sees that it’s much more likely that he would get sued over taking away the first amendment rights of the employees, so he usually leaves those rights relatively unmolested. The gun ownership thing is different because the owner thinks it’s more likely that one of his employees will go off the deep end and then he’ll get sued by the victims. So by that calculation he risks less by taking the gun ownership right away than he does by having gun owners around to protect others from an outsider who might go off the deep end.
The way to deal with this is to simply sue the employer for endangering the community by taking away our constitutionally provided means of self defense. If they told me I wasn’t allowed to exercise my 1st amendment rights, they’d have a lawsuit on their hands. The same should hold true for 2nd amendment rights.
The employer set up shop here in America where these rights are protected. The rights existed before his company existed.
If you decide to build your driveway in my country, there are certain rights in place before you built that driveway and we as a people have some things to say about how those rights are inviolate.
If you don’t like that, you can build your driveway elsewhere.
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.