Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 214587" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>It's called discrimination, but they get away with it because gun owners are not a protected class under discrimination laws.</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>How about this for a solution: They could pass laws that prohibit employment discrimination against <em>lawful</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>off</em> their property. If it's locked in my car and isn't illegal, it's none of their damn business!</p><p></p><p>Jerry Biggs</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 214587, member: 1132"] 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 [I]lawful[/I] 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 [I]off[/I] their property. If it's locked in my car and isn't illegal, it's none of their damn business! Jerry Biggs [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom