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

[gyolai]

this ruling is crazy.. wow i wish i could carry my handgun at work with me

 

[LightningCrash]

I could accept the OSHA argument if anyone actually worked in the aformentioned parking lots.

 

[shootermcgavin]

Somewhat off the subject, but I heard there is a school district in Texas that is allowing teachers with concealed carrier permits to bring their guns to school with them. THAT IS GREAT! I think that is a wonderful idea because if I were to be a whack-job bent on shooting someone, schools and post offices seem to be the safest place to do it because no one else should have a gun there.

 

[omegis13]

I'm surprised no one mentioned this, but there is a bit of hypocrisy in the ruling that employers can restrict employees from legally keeping their firearms locked in their cars. There are many businesses where parking is shared by both employees and customers. Many of these businesses (though not all) will not restrict customers from CC'ing in their shops, nor locking their weapons in their cars.

But they will restrict their employees from doing so?

 

[Savage250]

Is there any way to vote Kern out? Another avenue would be for Oklahoma to exercise its 10th Amendment right and give the big middle finger to the Government.

 

[MyMonkey]

Glad I work for myself.

 

[Mooniemoo]

So if I don't work at Wal Mart, I can leave my gun in the car? There is a sign on the door that says no guns allowed. Doesn't CCW mean that I can carry it in there? Where else would you need it more than a WM parking lot or on the way to or from your car?
Thanks, Mooniemoo (Tom)

 

[Jhamilton]

At my work they have made it a point to send emails & even include it in the company newsletter.....that inspite of whatever rulings there is in oklahoma....

"it is our company policy that no firearms are allowed on property at all, even if they are locked in your personal vehicle."

It's very silly!

 

[J.P.]

What's the latest on the issue?

Is the law prohibiting employers from prohibiting carry in cars still being held up by the injunction?


I've not heard any recent updates...

I'm surprised no one mentioned this, but there is a bit of hypocrisy in the ruling that employers can restrict employees from legally keeping their firearms locked in their cars. There are many businesses where parking is shared by both employees and customers. Many of these businesses (though not all) will not restrict customers from CC'ing in their shops, nor locking their weapons in their cars.

But they will restrict their employees from doing so?

Very good point.
I questioned the manager at..Cholmia's?(I think it was)... years ago because they had a gunbusters sticker on the door.
I called and explained to him that my wife wanted a nice large Palm tree that they were selling but we declined to purchase from them due to their prohibition of concealed carry on their premesis.
The manager told me that he didn't really personally have a problem with *me* carrying, but if they let the public carry in the store, then they had to allow their employees to do so as well ....and that they were not going to allow the employees to do that.
Of course, I gave him the whole explanation of criminals not obeying the signs anyway..yadda yadda yadda.
In the end, he seemed to have had his eyes opened a bit, but still wouldn't bend on the carry prohibition.

Where else would you need it more than a WM parking lot or on the way to or from your car?

In a bar.

 

[Jagger]

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."