That's fine...my companies wireless signal extends into the parking lot. Nothing my laptop and a power inverter can't fix.
If someone needs something they can come to my window.
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.
- Thread starter J.P.
- Start Date
That's fine...my companies wireless signal extends into the parking lot. Nothing my laptop and a power inverter can't fix.
If someone needs something they can come to my window.
sounds like you work at the same place i do
or maybe just similar, since i have to swipe my badge and see the large no gun signs on the doors every day too
I understand that. The vehicle would have to be occupied for someone to be forcibly removed. The intent implies to me that an occupant being forcibly removed is automatically given the justification of imminent danger whether a weapon is present or not. I would also think it is intended to prevent a victim outside the car from shooting someone inside the car who had no right to be there, much the same as standing outside a house and shooting a BG inside.
Perhaps a good argument cannot be made from that. In my uber-simple logic, my vehicle is my property, no matter where it is. If I can be fired because a search found company property in my vehicle while parked in the company parking lot, it must not be company property.
Anti-gun company policies are as effective at stopping gun violence in the workplace as "gun free" school zones are at stopping gun violence in schools.
I also believe that no one just "snaps" and goes postal.
Oklahoma Appeals!
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
Woodcdi, says you have to order a subscription to read that. What does it in effect say?
Has anyone seen this 93 page opinion yet? I looked on OSCN and it's not posted on there, and looks like you have to pay to log into the Northern District, does anyone happen to have a PACER account already? If not guess I can check it out and see if there is any additional information on there.
Has anyone seen this 93 page opinion yet? I looked on OSCN and it's not posted on there, and looks like you have to pay to log into the Northern District, does anyone happen to have a PACER account already? If not guess I can check it out and see if there is any additional information on there.
I've seen it in several mainline news bylines now, that Governor Henry and AG Edmondson have formally requested the 10th Circuit review the ruling. Should know something by 2008 or 2009... 
State appeals federal ruling on workplace gun bans
by Marie Price
The Journal Record November 7, 2007
OKLAHOMA CITY â Oklahoma has appealed an October federal court ruling that blocked enforcement of a 2004 state law that would restrict employersâ right to ban guns in the workplace. In October, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern handed down a permanent injunction, saying the 2004 statute conflicts with federal laws that protect workers on the job, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970.
Kernâs decision was appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by Gov. Brad Henry and Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who were sued in their capacities as state officials in October 2004 by Whirlpool. That company has since pulled out of the lawsuit, which is now headed up by ConocoPhillips as chief plaintiff.
Other challengers include Tulsa Winch Inc., DP Manufacturing Inc., Norris, Ramsey Winch Inc. and Auto Crane Co.
In late October 2004, before the law was scheduled to go into effect, U.S. District Judge Sven Holmes issued a temporary restraining order stalling the statute while the court case continued. Holmes said the Oklahoma statute conflicts with several federal laws. In a November hearing that year, Holmes said the Oklahoma law could affect the enforcement of some 25 federal laws. He extended the temporary restraining order as arguments in the case continued.
Additional amendments were approved in 2005, giving employers immunity from liability if a firearm in an employeeâs vehicle is used by a third person to injure or kill someone at work. In his decision last month, Kern concluded that the Oklahoma law does not amount to an unconstitutional taking of property rights or deprivation of a fundamental right, but is pre-empted by the federal occupational safety law.
The federal law requires employers to abate workplace hazards that could lead to death or serious bodily harm and encourages businesses to prevent gun-related workplace injuries.
Kern said the Oklahoma law criminally prohibits an effective method of cutting down such injuries âand cannot coexist with federal obligations and objectives.â
âThe court has serious concerns about these criminal laws, which deprive Oklahoma property owners of the right to exclude those individuals carrying and transporting firearms in their vehicles,â Kern said. However, Kern said the courtâs protection of Oklahoma citizensâ property rights is limited by U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting due process and the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Thanks, Matt. It was available when I first posted it last week.
You won't find it on OSCN. It's federal.
Woody
You won't find it on OSCN. It's federal.
Woody
Okay, now ponder this. The "police" cannot search your home or car without "due process" or acting on something "in plain sight." Then, to all those "I just will not support the companies that do this or that..."
I am a paramedic, work for the largest service in the land(Oklahoma) you know the name... No weapons on the person/employee or in your vehicle if parked on company property, and it is an offense (they will fire you) if you do not park in their lot. Yet, while attatched to the local SWAT team we carry weapons and even deploy from a "company vehicle." So, unless you're gonna' be your own paramedic, you really can't call another company or provider. Plus, on both ends of the turnpike, the geographic and socio-economic placement of my place of employment would tend to increase the chances of an incident that would require the use of force.
But, ponder this, in the work place violence. If you're mad enough to walk to the truck and get a weapon and return and use it. If the walk to the truck didn't phase you, like the cute girl from accounting smiling as you walked out, what's to say you would not drive to the house or wherever the weapons were and return. And, why did noone notice Joe Shotgun was: tense, quiet, pissed, angered, flustered, peeved or whatever during the said meeting or on his way to get the weapons. Much less his return trip. Asking for permission to defend yourself cost Luby's a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY, when that guy drove into the one in Texas, and proceded to shoot the people and place up. Yeah, a young woman had taken her parents to lunch that day, she had a concealed carry permit and a big ole' wheel gun in her purse, got to the door of the restaurant and seen the No Weapons Allowed **the pic of a pistol in a circle with a line drawn through it**, turned around and went back to her personal vehicle and secured said weapon. After the incident, Luby's hady to pay her for the loss of her parents(both), because the powers that be(judges, lawyers, jury) felt as though the young women could have not only defended herself and parents, but ended the incident. The court also ruled that the nifty sign "implies" that the establishment that posts it assumes the liability of "No weapons allowed...Because We Will Protect You!"
There in lies my dilema, the company I work for places me in harms way, without the ability to "call in fire upon my location" because the best I can get sometimes is "the .... department will not give out ETA's, the job/call has been assigned" while I am on duty. I will allow even less of a reaction when I am on the property going to or from duty/work at the most wonderful hours associated with a 12 hour minimum shift, in the said geographic areas.
You tell me?
They need a search warrant or probable cause, so if you don't tell anyone then how are they to know. The Judicial branch has stopped interpreting the law and thinks they are the Legislation branch. Judges are confused with their actual duties.
Similar threads
