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

[okcorral]

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.

The government does; not your employer. In Oklahoma you can be fired for not submitting to allow the employer to search your car.

Perhaps a disgruntled co-worker knows you have a gun and tells; or they start selecting random cars, or have dogs trained to sniff out guns. It doesn't matter, at the end of the day you will lose your job. it's not right but the way it is.

I too hope they overturn this as I will be working downtown soon and will probably refuse to ever work late if I can't protect myself.

 

[ExSniper]

As much as I hate someone telling me I cannot keep a gun on my person or in my car, I have to support property rights. A property owner should be able to say what happens on their own property. I make the rules at my house. If I say you cannot come to my house, you can be arrested for trespassing if you come on my property and refuse to leave. A business owner should have those same property rights. When we deny someone elses rights to invoke ours we are treading on a slippery slope. Like I said, I don't like it but if the employer says no, then it is no! I worked in the Army for many years and there were severe limits on carrying or having personal weapons on base, but when I got to work they issued me pistols, rifles, MGs, mortars, grenades, and high explosives. Did not make much sense but that was the rules!

 

[okcorral]

As much as I hate someone telling me I cannot keep a gun on my person or in my car, I have to support property rights. A property owner should be able to say what happens on their own property. I make the rules at my house. If I say you cannot come to my house, you can be arrested for trespassing if you come on my property and refuse to leave. A business owner should have those same property rights. When we deny someone elses rights to invoke ours we are treading on a slippery slope. Like I said, I don't like it but if the employer says no, then it is no! I worked in the Army for many years and there were severe limits on carrying or having personal weapons on base, but when I got to work they issued me pistols, rifles, MGs, mortars, grenades, and high explosives. Did not make much sense but that was the rules!

I think most of us agree with you, however, we're talking about the parking lot of the employer?

I don't usually think more laws are the answer but perhaps specific legislation stating that employers who don't allow employees to carry weapons in their cars are also responsible for the employees safety in the parking lot and should anything happen to the employee on the way home. Our state Congress already passed a law stating the employer cannot be held liable so at this point I just see Conoco Phillips as anti-gun.

 

[zulater]

As much as I hate someone telling me I cannot keep a gun on my person or in my car, I have to support property rights. A property owner should be able to say what happens on their own property. I make the rules at my house. If I say you cannot come to my house, you can be arrested for trespassing if you come on my property and refuse to leave. A business owner should have those same property rights. When we deny someone elses rights to invoke ours we are treading on a slippery slope. Like I said, I don't like it but if the employer says no, then it is no! I worked in the Army for many years and there were severe limits on carrying or having personal weapons on base, but when I got to work they issued me pistols, rifles, MGs, mortars, grenades, and high explosives. Did not make much sense but that was the rules!

I disagree. My right to live and be secure in my person trumps their property rights. If they are going to tell me that I can't protect myself they had better post security guards at all entry points to protect me and that isn't even a sure bet.

 

[underdog]

From today's McCarville Report:

Henry, Edmondson Argue Guns Promote Safety

From The Tulsa World ~ Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry and Attorney General Drew Edmondson contend a state law allowing employees to have guns in locked vehicles where they work promotes public safety.

The officials told the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week that, contrary to the ruling by a judge in Tulsa, the law does not conflict with the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The governor and attorney general made those arguments in asking the Denver-based court to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge Terence Kern in Tulsa’s federal court.

Kern ruled Oct. 4 that OSHA preempts the law, which was adopted in two stages in 2004 and 2005. He issued an injunction barring enforcement of the law.

ConocoPhillips and other large employers in Oklahoma that have policies against guns in their workplaces challenged the law.

Henry and Edmondson, in 22 pages of arguments this week, told the appellate judges the law promotes “the safety and health of Oklahoma citizens."

The state officials said OSHA has declined to set a national policy banning guns from workplaces. The governor and attorney general contend OSHA “should be interpreted in a manner that prevents the interference with the states’ exercise of police power to protect their citizens.”

http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/

 

[DBW]

I disagree. My right to live and be secure in my person trumps their property rights. If they are going to tell me that I can't protect myself they had better post security guards at all entry points to protect me and that isn't even a sure bet.

People have the right to find a new place employment if they disagree with the policies set forth by their employer. People are responsible for their own welfare... not their employer or their government.

Advocating that one person lose their rights (property) in favor of another person's rights (self preservation) is a contradiction.

 

[zulater]

People have the right to find a new place employment if they disagree with the policies set forth by their employer. People are responsible for their own welfare... not their employer or their government.

Advocating that one person lose their rights (property) in favor of another person's rights (self preservation) is a contradiction.

People don't always have the choice to seek alternative employment. Smaller towns, bad job market etc. You shouldn't be force to give up your right to protect yourself because you have to pay the bills.
No contradiction just one trumps the other because a business/corporation would not exist without the workers.

 

[mons meg]

Employers should be able to tell you you can't smoke in the building where you work. They should also be able to say you can't leave a pack of cigarettes in your car, which is in the parking lot...because cigarettes not being smoked and left in your car can affect the health and well being of your coworkers.

 

[DBW]

People don't always have the choice to seek alternative employment. Smaller towns, bad job market etc. You shouldn't be force to give up your right to protect yourself because you have to pay the bills.
No contradiction just one trumps the other because a business/corporation would not exist without the workers.

What makes your right more important than a business owner's rights? Property rights are a fundamental right as is the right to self preservation. A business owner has the right to determine how things go within their property, the same as you do in your house.

People always have a choice. Some choices aren't easy to make, but we all have choices. For instance, my employer does not allow weapons period. That is their policy and within their rights. As much as I dislike the policy, I agree to it as a condition of employment. If I can't stomach the policy, then I have a choice... live with it, seek employment elsewhere or start my own business where I call the shots.

The fact that gun owners believe their rights trump the rights of others is troubling. Many gun owners in Oklahoma go through all the trouble of bowing down to the state asking for permission to have a CCW (a right protected by the 2A no less) yet you have an issue with abiding by laws that preserve a property owners rights? Wow.

 

[mons meg]

DBW, I think the idea here is my car is also my property. We're not talking about carrying in the building. And, like it or not, the Federal judge didn't issue an injunction based on property rights, rather based on a weak link he pulled out of a hat to OSHA.

Should your employer should be able to have an employment policy restricting you from smoking in your car?