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

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Jagger

Marksman
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
The Bill of Rights is a limitation upon government not upon individuals

The Bill of Right came about because the Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The Second Amendment's object was to prevent Congress from abusing its power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", by neglecting "to provide for arming the militia", by declaring "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."

George Mason during the Virginia Ratification Convention expressed a widespread distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. … Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. … But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,—yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,—what chance is there for preserving freedom?

The Second Amendment was meant to be protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, or national guard, as we call it now. The American people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states. Such a circumstance has never happened, but this amendment would prevent it. The Second Amendment does not give anybody or everybody the right to possess and use firearms. The states may very properly prescribe regulations and permits governing the use of guns within their borders."
 

ExSniper

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
0
Location
Mustang
The latest edition of the Instructor's guide for the Oklahoma SDA includes several paragraphs explaining the law allows employees locking their weapons in their vehicles on business property. The injunction is not mentioned and the law is explained as being in effect now.
As to allowing employees versus customers to carry, the SDA specifically addresses a business owners right to control weapons on their property, with the one exception of denying employees the right to leave it locked in their car.
The law and its 64 pages of exlanations are not well written and cause too much confusion. I have asked several attorneys and many LEOs to read specific parts of the SDA then explain to me what that section means. The answers are all over the place, no consistency and often some huge loopholes or pitfalls.
 

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,291
Reaction score
5,194
Location
Kingfisher County
The Bill of Right came about because the Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The Second Amendment's object was to prevent Congress from abusing its power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", by neglecting "to provide for arming the militia", by declaring "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."

George Mason during the Virginia Ratification Convention expressed a widespread distrust of Congress and the possibility that it would not fund the arming for the militia as an excuse for the creation of a standing army, which could later to be used as an instrument of tyranny by Congress.

The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them, &c. … Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army. … But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,—yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,—what chance is there for preserving freedom?

The Second Amendment was meant to be protection against a possible abuse by Congress. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, or national guard, as we call it now. The American people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states. Such a circumstance has never happened, but this amendment would prevent it. The Second Amendment does not give anybody or everybody the right to possess and use firearms. The states may very properly prescribe regulations and permits governing the use of guns within their borders."

I can't let this pass! States don't have rights, people do. The amendment protects a right of the people. Just ask Antonin Scalia and the other four members of the Court who see it that way as well. They know how to abide the Constitution.

The several states don't have to arm their citizens though the states are not prohibited by the Constitution to do so. The citizens of each state may arm themselves any time or way they like(unconstitutional laws to the contrary notwithstanding).

The people arm themselves for self defense and to be ready if called upon by the civil authority to suppress insurrections, repel invasions, and to enforce Union laws when called upon by Congress. The people also arm themselves to discourage or destroy tyrants, dictators, Fascists, and the like who attempt to take total hegemonic domination.

Woody
 

J.P.

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
11
Location
Tulsa
The latest edition of the Instructor's guide for the Oklahoma SDA includes several paragraphs explaining the law allows employees locking their weapons in their vehicles on business property. The injunction is not mentioned and the law is explained as being in effect now.
Interesting.
I hope the instructors are giving the proper and current information to their students.....
If not, I wonder if they could be held liable?
 

Buzzdraw

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
3,271
Reaction score
176
Location
NE Oklahoma
I know this instructor is.

The latest version of teaching curriculum still covers the law, but neglects to mention that the 10th Circuit has put this particular law in the cooler.
 

Jagger

Marksman
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
States don't have rights,

alcweb2.loc.gov_ll_llsp_038_0600_06570643.gif
 

Jagger

Marksman
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
I can't let this pass! States don't have rights

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
Nullification.

Senate, April 2, 1830.

Mr. JOHNSTON. The right of a state to annul a law of Congress must depend on their showing that this is a mere confederation of states; which has not been done, and cannot be said to be true, although it should not appear to be absolutely a government of the people.
 

Quick_Draw_McGraw

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
15
Location
Tulsa
The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
Nullification.

Senate, April 2, 1830.

Mr. JOHNSTON. The right of a state to annul a law of Congress must depend on their showing that this is a mere confederation of states; which has not been done, and cannot be said to be true, although it should not appear to be absolutely a government of the people.

I think the simplest point is the 10th Amendment.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom