Has anyone heard anything else about the Conoco/Phillips deal?

[zwhite97]

I wonder if Conoco Phillips is still holding their lawsuit against the bill Gov. Henry signed into law about the right to carry your gun to work and leave it in a locked vehicle?? Has anyone heard anything on this lately??

[YukonGlocker]

Yes, they are. Whirlpool dropped out, but Conoco/Phillips is still fighting this. This is the latest info I could find on the web. I guess we are waiting on the court to make a decision.

"These latest initiatives follow laws passed in 2004 in Oklahoma and Kentucky that go even further in prohibiting employers from outlawing guns in the workplace. Employers led by ConocoPhillips filed a lawsuit to overturn the Oklahoma law. That suit, ConocoPhillips v. C. Brad Henry, No. 04-CV-820-H[J], is now pending before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which is considering questions over the criminal sanctions against employers who violate the law."

I do not buy gas from Conoco or Phillips 66 because of this.

[Soulman]

As an employee of theirs, I understand where they are coming from with it. I mean, they are just covering their butts with this one. Some guy or gal comes in and shoots up the place, and then the victims and/or their families try to take conocophillips to court. Easiest way is to say, "we don't allow any weapons on the place at all." Or if they have an employee pull a gun on someone to threaten them, they can fire them on the spot. No questions on if they thought their lives were in danger or who knows what else. Maybe this is just Conocophillips propaganda they are spreading to us, but it makes sense to me. Can anyone logically explain this one to me?

[Soulman]

Also, not buying gas from them......you really think that's going to teach them a lesson? How about if enough people do it, that just means layoffs for guys like me. You won't hurt these guys who are making the choices, just the little guys who feel it first. Sh*t rolls downhill.

[SMS]

You're not serious are you Dr. Jekyll? If someone was inclined to "shoot up the place" as you stated, do you think banning firerms in the parking lot would stop them? That logic falls in line with the anti's logic that No Firearms=A safer society

The lawsuit isn't about firearms in the workplace, it's about workers being able to carry, legally, on thier way to work and then secure it in their vehicle during the work day.....what's so dangerous about that?

[MarkV]

The lawsuit isn't about firearms in the workplace, it's about workers being able to carry, legally, on thier way to work and then secure it in their vehicle during the work day...

+1

[Soulman]

Not at all what I was saying. I was stating that if Conocophillips said, "no weapons period" that if something should happen they could just throw their hands up and say, "hey we told them they couldn't have them" there for having no legal means against Conocophillips.

"If you (conocophillips) hadn't allowed your employees to have access to weapons, maybe my husband/wife would still be alive today......." Come on guys you know we've seen and heard this before. I think it's more Conocophillips trying to cover their butt.

Do I think it's a good thing? No. Do I think it's because Conocophillips is a group of gun grabbing liberals? No. Do I think it's trying to lawyer-proof themselves for the future? Without a doubt. Honestly, what benefit would they have to gain? Do you honestly think they want to take an anti 2nd stance on this and alienate customers and stockholders?

[YukonGlocker]

There is another law that already protects companys from lawsuits, in the senerio you are describing. So Conoco saying they are trying to prevent a lawsuit or something is BS. They have no liability if someone goes postal.

And not buying from them teaching them a lesson. It is not just me. The NRA has campained nationwide for everyone not to buy from Conoco/Phillips, for their anti-gun stance. I try not to support any anti-gun company.

The state of Oklahoma permits me to carry a concealed firearm in my vehicle, to protect my life. I have to drive this vehicle back and forth to work. All this law does is allow me to leave my concealed firearm locked in my vehicle. I don't see a problem with that. If someone wants to go in to a workplace and kill people, that person does not care what any law says. That person is going to do it anyway.

[alank2]

Hi,

I 100% agree with boycotting companies with policies you don't like. Yes, boycotts do hurt them. It is unfortunate when good employees are affected by boycotts, but not holding companies responsible for their bad policy decisions is a worse choice. It is the same as not holding people responsible for their actions and look where that has gotten society these days.

It seems to me that if the company provides a place for you to park your vehicle, then what business is it of theirs what you have in the vehicle? It isn't their vehicle, is it?

Thanks,

Alan

[AresV]

I think they'd still get sued by the same people because they could claim they should've done more to prevent the person from bringing a firearm into their parking lot/plant. Someone could say they should have had a guard gate and someone should've checked them better, etc. There's no end to it IMO. In our society people will sue for ANYTHING in civil court.

Think about this scenario:

Let's say that I work for Conoco Phillips and am forced to leave my firearm at home. Someone comes in and shoots the place up (and me in the process). I think my family should sue Conoco Phillips. Not because they should have prevented it from happening, but because they handcuffed me with their policy and prevented me from being able to defend myself as a licensed concealed weapons holder when confronted by a lethal force threat.

I think in that situation someone would actually have a case and this stupid stunt that Conoco Phillips (and my previous employer back in OKC) are pulling would backlash.

My previous employer was not part of the lawsuit (it was a much smaller company), but they did make it company policy to not allow firearms in the building. I told my boss I thought the policy was pointless and explained the perspective that most of us here share (that the policy is worthless because someone coming in to shoot up the place could care less about it and it only prevents "good" employees from carrying and preventing someone from turning us all into sitting ducks). I offered to discuss it at length with our CEO and the legal team (we had a corporate master in the NE part of the country) but my boss said they were pretty set on keeping it the way it is. My boss agreed with me as did his boss, but their wasn't much we could do about it from what I was told.

We did have a situation where a temp hire had been fired from the night shift and the next morning he called the office and threatened to "come up in there and shoot all you m*****f*****s". I told my boss I was going to be ignoring the policy for my own safety until that situation was resolved:D.

[SMS]

Do I think it's a good thing? No. Do I think it's because Conocophillips is a group of gun grabbing liberals? No. Do I think it's trying to lawyer-proof themselves for the future? Without a doubt. Honestly, what benefit would they have to gain? Do you honestly think they want to take an anti 2nd stance on this and alienate customers and stockholders?


If it's just a common sense legal ass-covering move, then why is Conoco pretty much standing alone in this lawsuit....where are all the other Oklahoma corporations and businesses? They are barking up the wrong tree and are too stupid, or blinded by and anti-gun obsession, to see it....

[Soulman]

So if they are "too stupid, or blinded by anti-gun obsession", why aren't the other anti-gun companies jumping onboard with them?

[YukonGlocker]

Because most other anti-gun companies acknowledge this law will not affect the company.

[SMS]

So if they are "too stupid, or blinded by anti-gun obsession", why aren't the other anti-gun companies jumping onboard with them?


Because there aren't too many anti-gun companies in the state. Oklahoma is a pretty pro gun state...the bean counters at conoco better figure it out and comply with the state law instead of trying to subvert the will of the people through judicial activism.

[skyydiver]

If you'll notice, Dr., you're the one who your employer is effectively disarming on the way to work. We're really on your side by boycotting.

[Kiyot]

Okay I had looked this up before when I was researching the state laws for my own informations. And I'm not sure which House Bill in 2004 is the one that started all this. But from my understanding is that House Bill 1243 in 2005 satisfied alot of the companies worries with the law that was put into effect in 2004 because of the Weyehauser deal. I'll put the house bill at the bottom of this post showing what all was added. But essentially it removed civil liability from the businesses if thier employees had guns in thier locked vehicles in the parking lot. I am guessing that this is the reason why most other companies dropped out of this lawsuit. And some people think that this law is still not in effect because of the news a few months ago about the appeal by the Weyerhauser guys, but they are confined to laws as they were before 2004 since the new laws were not made retroactive. The following is from House Bill 1243 if you want to read it.

[ firearms – amending 21 O. S., Section 1289.7a – transporting or storing firearms in locked vehicles – providing exceptions – effective date ]
SECTION 1. AMENDATORY Section 1, Chapter 39, O.S.L. 2004 (21 O.S. Supp. 2004, Section 1289.7a), is amended to read as follows:
Section 1289.7a A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle.
B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for occurrences which result from the storing of firearms in a locked motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or owner of the business entity commits a criminal act involving the use of the firearms. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to claims pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act.
C. An individual may bring a civil action to enforce this section. If a plaintiff prevails in a civil action related to the personnel manual against a person, property owner, tenant, employer or business for a violation of this section, the court shall award actual damages, enjoin further violations of this section, and award court costs and attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff.
D. As used in this section, “motor vehicle” means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, and any other vehicle required to be registered under the Oklahoma Vehicle License and Registration Act.
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2005.
COMMITTEE REPORT BY: COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, dated 3 29 05 - DO PASS, As Amended.


Got this from http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/
And the Weyehauser info from http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/10th/057037.html

[Soulman]

Oklahoma is a pretty pro gun state...the bean counters at conoco better figure it out and comply with the state law instead of trying to subvert the will of the people through judicial activism.
Actually Conocophillips isn't just in Oklahoma. They are a global company. These policies they put in place are company wide across the board. That way there isn't any screaming about "you let your employess in Oklahoma carry, so why can't we?"

If you'll notice, Dr., you're the one who your employer is effectively disarming on the way to work. We're really on your side by boycotting.

So boycotting, causing the company to lose money therefor forcing layoffs is helping me out how?

[Soulman]

AresV: Think about this scenario:

Let's say that I work for Conoco Phillips and am forced to leave my firearm at home. Someone comes in and shoots the place up (and me in the process). I think my family should sue Conoco Phillips. Not because they should have prevented it from happening, but because they handcuffed me with their policy and prevented me from being able to defend myself as a licensed concealed weapons holder when confronted by a lethal force threat.
It's not even mentioning carrying on person, it's talking about having it in your vehicle. Scenario doesn't really apply. I just don't like the government being able to say what can and cannot take place on private property.

[skyydiver]

Actually Conocophillips isn't just in Oklahoma. They are a global company. These policies they put in place are company wide across the board. That way there isn't any screaming about "you let your employess in Oklahoma carry, so why can't we?"



So boycotting, causing the company to lose money therefor forcing layoffs is helping me out how?

Sorry man, the company borught the suit. I'm not taking responsibility for their actions. I won't patronize the only business in the state to sue over this law.

[AresV]

It's not even mentioning carrying on person, it's talking about having it in your vehicle. Scenario doesn't really apply.

I know that we aren't talking about carrying on a person. I'm simply throwing out a hypothetical situation.

But the scenario does apply because it could happen and I think the family would win in today's courts. I didn't want to go into "what if someone showed up to shoot up the place and you ran out to your car to get your gun..." crap because I think that's unrealistic and probably a good way to get shot in the back.

I just don't like the government being able to say what can and cannot take place on private property.


I don't like private companies deciding that a law abiding citizen, licensed by the State of Oklahoma, can't bring a firearm to work (in a vehicle, on their person, or otherwise). This also applies to private businesses who post "No Firearms" signs. I think those people are fools because their signs and policies will do nothing when someone brings a firearm with bad intentions except prevent law abiding citizens from defending their lives and the lives of others.

[SMS]

It's not even mentioning carrying on person, it's talking about having it in your vehicle. Scenario doesn't really apply. I just don't like the government being able to say what can and cannot take place on private property.

I respect property owners rights...but since when should a corporation's desire to insulate itself from frivolous lawsuits supersede a citizen's consitutional rights?

There are ample concessions and provisions in the law that protect both sides...employees aren't robbed of the means to protect themselves on the way to and from work, and the company is protected from civil liability....that's what I call a reasonble compromise.

Unfortunately this "global company" chooses to ignore the wishes of the people and laws of the state in which part of it's operation resides. That's not smart business, so they aren't getting my business.

[Soulman]

No problem. Get your gas some place else. It's not a massive boycott anyhow. Sure they will lose the case, but at least they have it documented for future cases against them. Out of curiousity, are you all also boycotting Wal-Mart and K-Mart for their Anti-status? How about all the others like Lowes and Sears? I guess I just get touchy when people think costing the company money will do anything except cost guys like me their jobs.

[crxman91]

[ firearms – amending 21 O. S., Section 1289.7a – transporting or storing firearms in locked vehicles – providing exceptions – effective date ]
SECTION 1. AMENDATORY Section 1, Chapter 39, O.S.L. 2004 (21 O.S. Supp. 2004, Section 1289.7a), is amended to read as follows:
Section 1289.7a A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle.
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2005.
COMMITTEE REPORT BY: COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, dated 3 29 05 - DO PASS, As Amended.


Got this from http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/
And the Weyehauser info from http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/10th/057037.html

So can I have my firearm locked in my vehicle while at work even tho my company policy states I cannot?

[skyydiver]

As long as Conoco's suit doesn't screw it up for the rest of us.

[SMS]

So can I have my firearm locked in my vehicle while at work even tho my company policy states I cannot?

That is the intent of the law...but Conoco is holding it up in court.

So, for now, you are robbed of your rights on the way to and from work until 10's of thousands of tax dollars are spent defending the law and Conoco loses the case.

[Kiyot]

I have looked all over for any updates on this and can't seem to find articles about it that are written in 2006. Does anyone know which court this is in exactly? I had seen something about the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals but couldn't find anything on OSCN. I have seen several articles about the restraining order about the 2004 law not being enforced, but why is it along with the 2005 amendment already written in the law. I'd think that if there was a restraining order that you wouldn't put it into the law and have it on a state website.

[mons meg]

More specifically, was the 2005 law enjoined by a judge like the 2004 law? My head hurts from trying to keep track of all this... ;)

[liliysdad]

DrJekyll, you are correct, it is a private property issue. However, you are bassackwards in your reasoning. The private property in question is the employees car, IMO.

What gives a company the right to dictate my safety when Im not on the clock, to and from work? I honestly do not have a huge problem with banning carry on ones person while ion the clock, that is a personal vs. state's right issue, and the compnay should retain that right. However, the company has no duty to protect when I am driving home, as they do when I am in their stead, and on their payroll.

Im not big on Boycotts, but I am in on this one. The assinine, self righteous feeling exhibited by this company infuriates me.

[alank2]

DrJekyll, you are correct, it is a private property issue. However, you are bassackwards in your reasoning. The private property in question is the employees car, IMO.

+1

Exactly. Does your car become "theirs" when it is parked on their land? No. So, what gives them the right to say what you can and can't have in YOUR car so long as it is legal with the state in which you live?

If it was a company car (THEIR property), then I would support the companies right to set a policy of saying you couldn't leave a firearm in it.

I will take this one step further. What gives them the right to say you should not be able to carry your licensed handgun? Should they also be able to say you can't have a wallet? keys? shoes? Do you become their property (I guess some would argue this at some jobs!!!) and have no rights?

Thanks,

Alan

[zwhite97]

SMS & Skydiver,
I agree with both of you. Dr.J, its like someone posted before, if ANYONE wants to shoot someone where they work, it doesn't matter what law is in place. AND, if someone with a concealed carry license was at work when it took place, there just might be one or two get their lives saved because of it. It was also posted that there were other companies involved when the suit was first filed, Williams and some others were on board at first and have since dropped out.

I don't and won't buy gas or anything from Conoco Phillips because of this. Who are they to stand in the way of State Law?? I'm sorry to say that if you get laid off because of Sh!t running down hill, then the boycott by the NRA and its members has done some good. Also if Conoco is too stupid to realize that sooner or later, this boycott will hurt their business, well, then they're just too stupid and shouldn't be entitiled to an opinion that effects the state of Oklahoma as a whole.