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 ...
My thoughts exactly. Judge Doofus relied on OSHA in making his ruling instead of a conflicting right, private property. I believe that he’ll be overturned on appeal.
To extend his “logic” to it’s logical ends, he must also ban automobiles in the parking lot as collisions kill far more people every year than firearms do by about a 4 to one ratio.
But the vehicle is on private property as well.
Using your logic you could claim that a person carrying a gun on his person into a place of business is valid because the “person” is his own private property.
You can “give up your rights under the Constitution”. Criminal suspects, for example, do it every day. They waive the right to remain silent, have an attorney present, a trial by jury, etc.
“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.’
Wrong. You don’t have a constitutional right to that job.
One you take the job knowing the conditions, you agree to the rules.
If you don’t like the work conditions or rules, find another to your liking but don’t agree then complain about it later.
Maybe you could sue yourself for agreeing to the rules?
This is so clear even I can understand it. It’s private property.
I I as a property owner say no pink lacy underwearer is allowed on my property. That’s the way it is.
But I do have one for Self Defense tools like "arms". Take those away as a condition of employment, you just assumed that role.
Spin it any way you want, but "employment" does not mean "slavery".
“You can’t be so stupid as to believe any empolyer has the right to tell employees what they can do in their own home, or on their own time, as a condition of employment.”
You can’t be so stupid as to believe they can’t. Employment contracts routinely have “morals” clauses that allow the person to be fired if they engage in activities, off work, that degrade the reputation and image of the company.
Note: Check Michael Vick.
“An employer can only put conditions and rules on the time they are paying you, so if they want to pay a person 24 hours a day(and I don’t mean saleries, because that has already been argued and found wanting), I mean actually pay you for every minute of every day, THEN just maybe they could tell you what to do after office hours.”
Baloney, are you making this up as you go along?
“The fact of the matter is, if they tried to tell you a condition of employment was to be unarmed at home as well as on the premises you would be legally obliged not to comply with the “at home” provision. The reason? Because you cannot voluntarily give up your rights under the constitution.”
Baloney again. What is the most oft heard phrase in cop movies? “You have the right to remian silent, if you give up that right...”
“It isn’t legal, although they are trying it at some work places, to tell you that you can’t smoke on your on time let alone tell you that you are unable to excersize your constitutional rights on your own time.”
Of course it’s legal if you do it on their property.
My car is not your property. Your “ownership” claim ends at my tires. Period. End of story.
Yo also have the "right" to dress as you wish but business's have dress codes. Show up naked or in a clown outfit and you'll get terminated.
You also have the "right" to speak as you like but use profanity or tell a customer to pound sand and you'll be terminated.
The difference is business's don't have the authority of law. If they could put you in jail for doing these things I'd agree with you. But all they can do is let you go because you don't have a right to that job.
I believe the City of Chicago forbids city employees to own firearms and I am sorry that I do not have a reference for you to that end.
“My car is not your property. Your “ownership” claim ends at my tires. Period. End of story.”
Another false statement. If your car is on their property you have to abide by their rules such as speed limits. If you park in a no parking zone your car can be towed. As long as “your tires” are touching “their pavement” they have rights as well.
Why do you feel YOUR RIGHTS supercede those of all others?
the difference is that its your car, someone elses building
“I believe the City of Chicago forbids city employees to own firearms and I am sorry that I do not have a reference for you to that end.”
I find this incredible, you may have to find the source.
Here's a hint: It doesn't.
In fact, having a number of armed employees around helps with over all security and is a freebee for the company.
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.
"Go pound sand" indeed...
No, it's not. The building is fine with people having guns in their cars (I asked the building manager).
My employer is preventing me from carrying a gun in my car in a parking lot not owned or controlled by them. It a load of crap.
I am curious, do they ban you from carrying/possessing lighters, matches, strikers, etc.?
You posted: Your argument about freedom is full of many holes, I suggest you read more about freedom and the responsibilities that go along with it.
***
I understand you don’t like my reasoning, and I don’t think it is a good idea for employers to act that way, only that in NC and most other states, an employer doesn’t have to have a good reason to fire an employee. He can have any or no reason, as long as it is not an illegal reason (race, gender, age discrimination, e.g.) Don’t forget that the employer has rights too, even the right to do stupid things. The employer cannot force an employee to give up his guns, at home or otherwise, but the employer CAN fire him for keeping them, just like an employee can quit for the same reason. We may not like it, but the government havs no place telling an employer who he can and cannot employ.
No they don’t. And I see your point. Although I only had restricted access to certain areas. Those items may have been banned in the areas I wasn’t supposed to enter. But I kind of doubt it.
You posted: So if I start my own business I can put a sign in the window that says “no muslims allowed”? or “no spanish language allowed”? or “no hiphop culture allowed”?
***
The first one no, the second one, not sure, and I think you COULD prohibit hip culture on your private business
Of course, in your home you can prohibit all three. But law could be passed by a state or the feds to require that all three must be tolerated.
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.