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 ...
To which my family has been instructed to write in:
“None of your d**n business”
Hmmm...having all those guns in a court room isnt very safe either...
* Buy
However, employers have the right to have conditions of employment. If you don't like those conditions, don't work there.
The same attitude with smoking. If the establishment does not want smokers in/on his premises, that is his choice.
However, screw all the silly laws that dictate/mandate rules and conditions in the private sector. I am extremely Conservative and I hate the government. Leave us alone and let us manage our own lives.
(BTW, I carry, and smoke.)
The thesis is the existence of guns constitutes the primary hazard, ignoring the widely available evidence to the contrary.
Until the employee drives onto the private property of the employer. Check your guns at the factory gate, my friend.
"2) The employer assumes full responsibility for their disarming policies."
No can do. The employer is simply following OSHA safety guidelines (federal law) which says that the presence of guns represent a hazardous working environment.
Demonstrate that the presence of guns actually contributes to worker safety and watch the fun and games begin as it will then be a federal requirement to arm yourself at work!
Well... No but two things:
(1) There is literally nowhere else to park (unless I park in another office building's visitor lot and risk getting towed).
(2) It's not my employer's lot. It's a multi-tenant office building and the building doesn't care if you have a gun in your car.
My company's policy is that we can't have guns on employer-owned or leased property OR on property owned by customers or vendors. They consider the office building a vendor for purposes of this rule. It's horsecrap but since we're in an 'at will' state, they can fire us for any reason or no reason, which is exactly what would happen if they found out someone was carrying in their car.
Like smoking? Illegal drug use?
Wasn't there some employer somewhere who required his smoking employees to stop smoking or they'd be fired?
I believe that survived a legal challenge too...
Yup. The gist of the deal was that since the employer was paying for the health insurance they could prohibit risky behavior. I have no huge problem with that but people should be able to opt out of the rule by payng their own insurance premiums.
All you people that cheered this one had better watch out. Employers are going to start regulating our eating habits and sexual activity soon. Mark my words.
They would have more of a case IF they charged to park in the lot.
That would create a defacto contract that could have rules to comply.
PING!
An unloaded gun is a club. Mine are loaded unless they are not going to be used in the near future.
Everything outside the gun cabinet is loaded. (I have no kids in the home to worry about.)
Yep .....paper laws stop jacketed bullets every time.
This judge is an idiot...
My employer charges smokers more than non-smokers for insurance. They do it in the form of a ‘discount’ for not not smoking. Lying about it is a firing offense. To their credit, they provide a free smoking cessation program that provides a full course of patches or gum.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to government, not to private entities. One exception would be the 18th amendment. The only one to ever be repealed.
I guess it can be argued that section 2 of the 21st amendment, the first section of which repealed the 18th, does apply to private entities, because it prohibits actions by those entities, rather than giving government the power to prohibit those actions (importing booze into states where it's illegal).
Mine’s the same.
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.