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

[berettaman]

Holy "dead thread"Batman!

 

[mons meg]

My employer still is requiring us to unload our gun and leave it in our glove box of the locked car!

Your employer wouldn't happen to be a major healthcare provider, would it?

Curious to see what happens to those policies November 1. I think the thread is relevant again since we made those modifications to the "parking lot" law.

 

[AKguy1985]

Might want to read this...

Everyone is correct, so far, in references to as long as its not restricted area according to SDA, it is unlawful for an employer to bar employees from having a personal firearm in their vehicle (cant be company car) on company property.

Now, I will speak to you from a perspective involving Ethic and Legal aspects of Human Resources in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is an employ at will state, if they find out you have a firearm in your car, you can still be terminated for it. I was a HR/Legal minor in college and I can tell you that what they teach isnt how you have to follow the law, but how you get around it. Since OK is employ at will, if you do something that, legally, they cant enforce, they can and will find another way.


So, my advice, if you do it, keep it hush hush. Absolutely noone, and i emphasize NOONE, needs to know what you have in your car.

The bolded part is true, dont ask dont tell.

 

[ssgrock3]

So what is the difference in my rights being protected and allowing the firearm, vs me as an employer/owner and not having the right to have control over my dwelling/business or property.

I don't agree with not being able to have the weapon in my vehicle, but we all scream about our rights, what if you are the employer? Don't he also have the right to run his business the way he sees fit? Double edged sword. I know another less than popular view.

 

[338Shooter]

To me, my car is my private party. They can allow me to park there or they can not. If they do, they can't say what I have or not have in my private property.

 

[twoguns?]

So what is the difference in my rights being protected and allowing the firearm, vs me as an employer/owner and not having the right to have control over my dwelling/business or property.

I don't agree with not being able to have the weapon in my vehicle, but we all scream about our rights, what if you are the employer? Don't he also have the right to run his business the way he sees fit? Double edged sword. I know another less than popular view.

Logic....Yawnnnn......My question is ...Will the employer protect me until I get back to MY protection....That should be the ???????


Just kidin about the logicyawn..

 

[Glocktogo]

So what is the difference in my rights being protected and allowing the firearm, vs me as an employer/owner and not having the right to have control over my dwelling/business or property.

I don't agree with not being able to have the weapon in my vehicle, but we all scream about our rights, what if you are the employer? Don't he also have the right to run his business the way he sees fit? Double edged sword. I know another less than popular view.

Does your employer frequently conduct business inside your car? Does he make your car payments for you or take care of the insurance? Does he cover you with worker's comp when travelling to and from work?

Logic isn't a one way street.

 

[henschman]

Does the employer own his premises or not? That is the question. If he does, he has the moral right to set any rule he chooses for it. Likewise, as a free individual, he has an absolute moral right to place any terms he wishes on his consent to engage in voluntary relationships with others (such as employment). If you don't like his terms, you simply leave him alone and refrain from coming on his property or engaging in voluntary relationships with him. That's how things would work in a free society (which is unfortunately pretty far from the one we live in).

 

[mons meg]

Principled arguments can be successfully made on both sides of the "property rights" issue. For better or worse, the State of Oklahoma came down on the side of the employee's personal property (and self defense) rights. The judgment call had to be made one way or the other. I tend to agree with the law, as I think the self-defense interest that is served outweighs the potential infringements on the rights of a property owner.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Does the employer own his premises or not? That is the question. If he does, he has the moral right to set any rule he chooses for it.

When you drive into a parking lot in your personal vehicle, does the right to control the interior of your personal vehicle automatically transfer from you to the parking lot owner who has no vested interest in your personal property which remains inside the body of your personal vehicle?