Can OC be Challenged in the Courts?

[Werewolf]

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.

Concealed carry has been around a long time. With all the violence in the work place over the last 25 years or so I will hazard a guess that if a law suit could have been brought based on the grounds noted above that it would have been done by now.

IMO - the problem with suing in circumstances where one wasn't permitted to carry and thus died as a result due to violence in the workplace, or any other location for that matter, is proving that the deceased would still be alive if they had been permitted to carry.

Maybe some of our legal eagles could jump in and comment.

 

[tRidiot]

It's a simple matter for an employer or a business to deny the right to carry, and say if you don't agree, go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to be there. The choice to continue employment or to patronize a business is yours and yours alone.

This is why I try to avoid businesses where I am not allowed to carry. And I let them know it.

 

[nephets0]

I walked into work with an empty leather holster one day... not a peep from HR. (openly on the hip shirt tucked in behind it etc)
(my company is based in the Republic of Kalifornia, and the anti gun precedent extends for all their call centers)

 

[tharper]

A buddy's employer has a no gun policy, even in their parking lot. I told him there shouldn't be any reason they should know he even had it in his car, unless he told them. He said it was something due to the contracts they work on, but they're still a private business. I work in a similar part of town, and I wish I could leave my pistol in my truck at work(federal installation), especially if I have to stop at some of the nearby establishments for gas on the way home.

 

[MLR]

I'm waiting for someone step up and claim that requiring a photo permit ID disenfranchises certain members of society who cannot afford to exercise their right to carry because of the costs.

Michael

 

[Glocktogo]

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.

No one should ever know. That said, keep copies of their policy manual in case they ever do. If they fire you after finding out and you have a copy of their policy, I doubt anyone would believe them if they said they didn't fire you in violation of state law. They'd be stupid to do it as a matter of fact.

 

[Seth247]

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.

I imagine that first law you mentioned was challenged on the basis of property rights in that a business owner can ban whatever they wish on their premises.

Open carry has no such complications. A business owner can still ban people from carrying openly just like thu can ban people from carrying concealed, so there is no complication with open carry specifically.

 

[mons meg]

I say call the police and tell them HR is in violation of the criminal code. The parking lot rule falls under Title 21, Crimes and Punishments...

JB? Care to comment?

 

[Werewolf]

I imagine that first law you mentioned was challenged on the basis of property rights in that a business owner can ban whatever they wish on their premises.

An FYI: The parking lot law was originally challenged IIRC as you say - based on property rights. What ended up happening at the appeal level - and I am still mystified that a judge could do this - was that the appeal was upheld based on some notion that the law violated federal OSHA regulations. That ruling got overturned at the next higher appeals court level (10th Circuit - I think) and the legislation then became law and employers in OK were no longer allowed to forbid employees from locking up guns in their cars. The company I worked for had it's weapons policy changed within a matter of weeks so some employers at least were watching the issue and complied when the final ruling came out.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I'm waiting for someone step up and claim that requiring a photo permit ID disenfranchises certain members of society who cannot afford to exercise their right to carry because of the costs.

Michael

Why? We clearly have Constitutional Carry in Oklahoma.



Article II § 26. Bearing arms - Carrying weapons.

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.