Can OC be Challenged in the Courts?

[Werewolf]

I remember when the 1st bill that said employers couldn't prohibit guns locked in employee cars on the employer's property got challenged by a lot of OK businesses and it took almost 3 years before the courts tossed the challenge out.

Could some anti-gun group challenge OC once it is signed into law but before it goes into effect? If so, on what legal grounds could it be done?

Personally I don't think it is challengeable since the OK Constitutional equivalent of the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that the the legislature has the authority to direct how guns can be carried but I'm no lawyer.

 

[David2012]

Very doubtful. I think Tennessee passed a similar open carry law 17 yrs ago when Oklahoma passed its concealed carry law.

 

[abajaj11]

I remember when the 1st bill that said employers couldn't prohibit guns locked in employee cars on the employer's property got challenged by a lot of OK businesses and it took almost 3 years before the courts tossed the challenge out.

Could some anti-gun group challenge OC once it is signed into law but before it goes into effect? If so, on what legal grounds could it be done?

Personally I don't think it is challengeable since the OK Constitutional equivalent of the 2nd amendment is pretty clear that the the legislature has the authority to direct how guns can be carried but I'm no lawyer.

On what grounds? Health and safety? It's a lot more unsafe to conceal carry than open carry. It's also a lot more unsafe to have folks around you carrying in ways that are concealed from view because you have no way of ascertaining if they are carrying safely or not. For example, the person next to you at the diner may have a gun in their pocket with the safety off, a "hair-trigger" (whatever that is) and a large bunch of keys in their pocket. And you would be blissfully unaware. With open carry you could at least see how the individual is carrying. ( I don't believe this above argument for a second since one can also argue that the individual driving behind you in the large SUV is trashed out of their mind and has some kind of death wish, so driving should be banned).

Of course, concealed carry has been legal and unchallenged for 17 + years, and virtually accident free. It has proved (if proof was ever needed) that folks are not stupid and are quite capable of carrying responsibly and safely without the need for "specialized training". SO I am not sure how a case can be made for OC being "unsafe". Certainly you cannot make a case that it is unconstitutional or discriminatory in any way.

 

[fredkrueger]

This brings up an interesting thing for me to discuss. I work for a place here in town and I am a member of a union here. I was reading through our contract today and it states that I cannot have a firearm in the building or on the premises. This is against what the law says so how can they go against the law of this state? But this is the way this place that I work at is. They think that they can do whatever they want. I think that someone challenged them before but our union is so weak that they just let the company do whatever they want to. I have a right under state law to have my gun in the car. They are trying to tell me that if I do have one in there and they find it in my car they will fire me. Would this hold up in court if I did lose my job? But about the open carry getting challenge, I hope not. It is going to be hard waiting until November as it is. The last thing that we need is for it to be challenged and pushed back another several months.

 

[abajaj11]

This brings up an interesting thing for me to discuss. I work for a place here in town and I am a member of a union here. I was reading through our contract today and it states that I cannot have a firearm in the building or on the premises. This is against what the law says so how can they go against the law of this state? But this is the way this place that I work at is. They think that they can do whatever they want. I think that someone challenged them before but our union is so weak that they just let the company do whatever they want to. I have a right under state law to have my gun in the car. They are trying to tell me that if I do have one in there and they find it in my car they will fire me. Would this hold up in court if I did lose my job? But about the open carry getting challenge, I hope not. It is going to be hard waiting until November as it is. The last thing that we need is for it to be challenged and pushed back another several months.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me if they fire anyone and they have a gun in their car, that person can sue them for mucho dough by claiming they were fired for having a gun in their car in the parking lot for which it is ILLEGAL to fire anyone in the state of OK! The company needs to get with the State law.

 

[Roadking Larry]

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me if they fire anyone and they have a gun in their car, that person can sue them for mucho dough by claiming they were fired for having a gun in their car in the parking lot for which it is ILLEGAL to fire anyone in the state of OK! The company needs to get with the State law.

Easy out.
Oklahoma is employment at will.
"Your services are no longer required" is all the reason they need to supply.
Your union contract may over ride that.

 

[abajaj11]

Easy out.
Oklahoma is employment at will.
"Your services are no longer required" is all the reason they need to supply.
Your union contract may over ride that.

I agree. In this case though, the company has a termination policy that is clearly at odds with State law. So a case can be made by the fired employee that they were fired as part of this illegal policy. Not saying the fired employee will win, but it does make the company more vulnerable in that it shows they are either not competent or are wilfully not complying with State law. If the employee is carrying a gun in his/her car and has made certain that other folks around aware of it, the employee can argue they were fired BECAUSE of that, even if the company has not stated a reason for the firing.
I'm not a lawyer but it just seems it would be easier for the company if their termination policies were in accordance with State law.

 

[kroberts2131]

This brings up an interesting thing for me to discuss. I work for a place here in town and I am a member of a union here. I was reading through our contract today and it states that I cannot have a firearm in the building or on the premises. This is against what the law says so how can they go against the law of this state? But this is the way this place that I work at is. They think that they can do whatever they want. I think that someone challenged them before but our union is so weak that they just let the company do whatever they want to. I have a right under state law to have my gun in the car. They are trying to tell me that if I do have one in there and they find it in my car they will fire me. Would this hold up in court if I did lose my job? But about the open carry getting challenge, I hope not. It is going to be hard waiting until November as it is. The last thing that we need is for it to be challenged and pushed back another several months.

I don't see any reasonable way your employer should ever find out you have a gun in your vehicle anyways. Don't tell anyone and you will be fine. Your not breaking any laws but don't go advertising it.

 

[fredkrueger]

I don't see any reasonable way your employer should ever find out you have a gun in your vehicle anyways. Don't tell anyone and you will be fine. Your not breaking any laws but don't go advertising it.

Not one soul knows that I have my pistol in my car when I am at work. When some ask if I ever bring it with me I tell them no. "Why do I need it when I am at work" is what I tell them. I was just wandering about what would happen if they did know. I just can't see them having a chance in court for firing me for storing my pistol in my car. I have a CCL and abide by our state laws. How can a business trump state law?

 

[OKCHunter]

My experience has shown that it is not the "company" that is forbidding firearms but it's the insurance company that requires the no firearm policy. In the event of an altercation involving a firearm, the insurance companies think they can claim no responsibility (no financial payment) if they forbid firearms in the workplace. I'm just waiting for the day when someone (or a family member) sues a company or insurance agency for not allowing a person the means of defending themselves.