Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.

Pstmstr · Oct 7, 2007

I agree the law stinks, judges make poor decisions every day and are not held accountable for it. I'd suggest just finding the closest safe place to park your vehicle that is not company property, strap a bike on your bumper, and ride the rest of the way to work if necessary. If they ask you to run down to the branch office to grab something, tell them you don't have a car because of their stupid company rules.

MLR · Oct 7, 2007

plumbntz said:
As I try to understand this pile of ----. I have a question or two:1 Can LEOs enforce a companies policies?2 Can an employer detain you from leaving to search your car.

Where I used to work they couldnt detain you. If you left or refused the search you would be fired.

Michael

Glocktogo · Oct 7, 2007

plumbntz said:
As I try to understand this pile of ----. I have a question or two:1 Can LEOs enforce a companies policies?2 Can an employer detain you from leaving to search your car.

1. Not unless the policy in question is also a law, such as possession of a narcotic.

2. LEO's can detain workers if they deem it necessary for the safety of others, or if evidence of a crime is discovered, but only with probable cause. Refusal to allow an employers search would not of itself constitute probable cause. A responding LEO would likely conduct a brief investigation to see if any probable cause existed. As stated before, a "hit" on your automobile by a certified drug dog would constitute probable cause.

LEO's can also enforce trespass laws if the employer requests that you leave the premises. Simply enforcing company policies that are not laws would place a law enforcement agency in jeopardy of civil liability.

J.B.

MLR · Oct 7, 2007

Does this ruling affect customers that park in a companies parking lot?

Michael

DC · Oct 7, 2007

Correct me if i am wrong, but I beleive the Oklahoma is an "At Will" state therefore an employer can mandate any rule that they deem fit. My company pays me mileage to travel, therefore my vehicle then becomes a "company" vehicle. That then means that it is "their" property and by company rule, even though i have a concealed carry permit i would be violating company policy if I have a weapon in my vehicle.
Don

Glocktogo · Oct 7, 2007

paul0731 said:
I guess I'm probably in the minority here, but I think employers should have the right to not allow guns on their property. It is their property after all. This being said, I don't agree with companies that choose not to allow employees to have guns in locked vehicles, but I still think the company has that choice/right. I can always choose to not support such companies, by not purchasing their stock, products, or working there.

CCW permit holders are exercising their rights under state law. Some employers (read, most employers) are not as concerned about workplace violence as they are about being sued for workplace violence. The state fixed that by exempting them from liability. Yet some still want to control what their employees have and do both on and off their property.

The ruling by Judge Kern fails the "reasonable man" doctrine. In today's society, does a reasonable man need a job? Does a reasonable man have a right to self-defense and the tools to do so? Does the SDA allow a properly licensed reasonable man to carry a gun? Could allowing employers to prohibit properly licensed and stored firearms in parking lots cause a reasonable man to choose between his rights under state law and feeding his family? Are there enough employers in the state who allow properly licensed and stored firearms in their parking lots to employ all those who choose to do so? At a competitive rate for similar skills? At a location reasonable to each persons dwelling?

If the answer is yes to the first 4 questions and no to the last 3, then the ruling fails on merit. Saying Oklahoma is an "at will" state doesn't cover it. Does that mean it's ok for everyone in the state to be unemployed? What Conoco-Phillips and the other companies who signed onto this stupid lawsuit are saying is that if you're a SDA permit holder, either you shouldn't have a job or you should give up the right to self-defense. If the policy is good for them, shouldn't it be good for every employer in the state?

It's called discrimination, but they get away with it because gun owners are not a protected class under discrimination laws.

You can choose to shop elsewhere if a merchant has signs posted, there are many places to shop after all. But should you have to relocate to find a job that allows you to exercise your right to self-defense? Should you have to accept substandard pay if a comparable job is not available?

How about this for a solution: They could pass laws that prohibit employment discrimination against lawful gun owners. Or, they could require any employer that exercises their "right" to prohibit firearms in parking lots to assume liability for employee safety to and from work, at work, and anywhere in-between, against threat of death or great bodily harm by another. With no limit on liablity amounts! All you would have to do is prove that you had a permit and would have carried in your vehicle if not for company policy.

I personally have no concern for an employer's property rights when they're fully aware that their policy effectively tramples my right to self-defense off their property. If it's locked in my car and isn't illegal, it's none of their damn business!

Jerry Biggs

Protect · Oct 7, 2007

Paying mielage does not make your car a company car. It means they compensate you for gas, wear and tear on your vehicle that you use to do a job for them.

I get paid to work from home on occasion, that does not make my home office company property.

JamesBell · Oct 7, 2007

I hate this subject. Neither answer is right. If employers are able to keep people from having a gun in their car they are infringing on the right of the person to defend themselves- and the right to keep and bear arms.

On the other hand, the state telling anyone (large corporation or a single person) what they must allow on their property is an infringement of their property rights. That would be no different from a legal standpoint than a law saying I must allow someone with a CWL to carry a weapon in my home. Sorry, but if I don't want you to have a gun in my house I'm not going to let you in my home with a weapon- it is my property whether you like it or not.

As for doing something about it- I don't know what could be done. A state cannot legislate around the courts, and the federal government isn't going to pass a law saying you can keep a gun in your car in a parking lot- and Constitutionally they wouldn't have the authority to pass such a law anyway. (Not that it would stop them if they wanted to do so.) About all we can do is try to pressure the state (read Attorney General) to keep fighting and kick this on up the line to the appellate courts. Maybe Edmondson's office needs to get a couple hundred phone calls Monday.

Buzzdraw · Oct 7, 2007

Does this action referencing (I assume) 21 OS 1289.7a and 1290.22 apply only to the Northern District of OK? That's the only place in OK where it was previously tied up in court by ConocoPhillips.

The Northern District includes 13 counties in the NE corner of the state.

green country shooter · Oct 7, 2007

I don't know whether the ruling would only apply in the Northern District. That's a great question. If we had a copy of the ruling it might help. I suspect the Attorney General of Oklahoma will appeal this ruling, so we'll see.

I understand why someone would have mixed feelings about this law, but I think the "parking lot" provision is really a compromise. It doesn't force a company or a home owner to allow an armed person into their building or home.

I do know that several other states have such laws, and I hope these anti-gun organizations don't go around the country knocking down each one, using this OSHA argument. The folks in those other states will blame us!

Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.

Pstmstr

AKA Michael Cox. Back by popular demand.

MLR

Sharpshooter

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter

MLR

Sharpshooter

DC

Sharpshooter

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter

Protect

Sharpshooter

JamesBell

Sharpshooter

Buzzdraw

Sharpshooter

green country shooter

Sharpshooter

Similar threads

Latest posts

Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.

AKA Michael Cox. Back by popular demand.

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!