.

Brits report on Okie law allowing guns @ workplace

RamtinxxlRamtinxxl Member Posts: 9,480
Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work
By Alec Russell in Valliant and Scott Heiser in Washington
(Filed: 11/12/2004)

Gun-toting, tough-talking, and anti-establishment to his muddy boot straps, Larry Mullens is an Oklahoman "good ole boy" personified.

He is also fast becoming a classic American folk hero as he takes centre stage in a revolt of gun owners that is reverberating in boardrooms across the United States. The son of one of the last of the old-style Wild West ranchers, he first fired a gun as a boy.

Now he carries his trusty Winchester in his pick-up on his way to work at a sawmill in case he comes across a coyote, a wild dog or even a wolf attacking his small herd of steers. Last year he lost five calves to wild dogs.

So it was perhaps not surprising that he was enraged when his previous employer fired him for breaking company security rules that banned guns from the company car park after they found a .38 pistol stashed behind the seat of his pick-up.

No one could have predicted that two years later he and his backers would claim an extraordinary revenge - a law allowing employees to keep guns in locked cars on company property.

Just two days after a gunman jumped on to a stage in Columbus, Ohio, and shot dead a heavy metal guitarist and three others before himself being shot dead, it might seem surprising to hear that elsewhere a state is extending gun owners' rights.

But in Oklahoma, as across much of rural America, gun control is seen as the work of naive and meddling minds.

"Having a gun is no different from having a hammer. It is just a tool," said Jerry Ellis, a Democratic representative in the state legislature who drafted and pushed through the law.

"Here, gun control is when you hit what you shoot at."

The passage of the law resounded like one of Larry Mullens's Winchester rifle shots through the boardrooms of America.

In recent years companies have been implementing anti-gun policies in an attempt to cut down on violence at the work place.

Now they fear the Oklahoman ruling will encourage the powerful gun lobby all over America to try to roll back the reforms.

Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says.

"It's the most irresponsible piece of legislation I've seen in my 25 years in the business," he said. "I would invite anyone who'd allow people to bring firearms to work to write the first death notice.

"The argument that emp-loyees should be allowed to bring firearms to work because they'll be locked in the car is so absurd it barely merits a response."

Several companies are trying to block the law. Two days before it was due to come into force last month, a judge granted a temporary restraining order preventing it from taking effect. The next hearing is on Tuesday.

But the firms are fighting on unfavourable terrain. Contrary to the widespread impression that the nation is polarised between gun-loving Republicans and more liberal Democrats, in the heartland gun control spans party lines. The law passed unanimously in Oklahoma's Senate and by 92 votes to four in the House.

Mike Wilt, a Republican, voted against the law, not on security grounds but because he believes the state should not dictate gun policies to property owners. "Here in Oklahoma the issue of guns is not a wedge issue," he said. "We all go hunting together and we all tend to have the same beliefs."

Two weeks ago one of the principal plaintiffs, Whirlpool, a prominent supplier of white goods, withdrew from the case. It said it was satisfied that its ban on guns on its property was not affected. The gun lobby suspects that the decision had more to do with talk of a boycott of the firm.

Nowhere do feelings run more strongly than in Valliant, a small town where, on Oct 1, 2002, at the Weyerhaeuser paper mill, the row began.

Mr Mullens was one of four on-site employees who were sacked after guns were found in their vehicles in contravention of a new company ruling. They are convinced it was just an excuse to lay off workers and insist they did not know about the new security laws.

The firm, which is locked in litigation with the fired employees, rejects the charges and says everyone knew it had a zero-tolerance approach to security. "You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser," said Jim Keller, the firm's senior vice-president. "Safety is our number one priority.

"It's more important to tell someone they don't have a job than to have to tell a family that their loved one is not coming home from work. This is about safety; it's not about guns."

But the people of Valliant, where the high school closes down during the prime week in the deer-hunting season to allow pupils to shoot, will not be easily assuaged.

James Burrell, an assistant at the local gun shop, said: "Most people around here think the new law is already a right."

Mr Mullens has now found a new job, where his employer is less pernickety.

"People tell me to 'stick to my guns' because they are all carrying one too," he said. "The bottom line is that it is our constitutional right to have a gun in the car."

Comments

  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,361 ******
    edited November -1
    Point #1.
    Good for Larry, he is standing up to the gun grabbers, which is what we need MORE of. WE have been too quiet, for TOO long. Remember, it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. MAKE SOME NOISE.

    Point #2.
    Did you notice that it said a Democratic representative? Hmmm.......
    Maybe they are not ALL bad. [;)] [:D]
    quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
    "Having a gun is no different from having a hammer. It is just a tool," said Jerry Ellis, a Democratic representative in the state legislature who drafted and pushed through the law.


    Point #3.
    What the H*ll were they doing searching through his vehicle???
    quote:after they found a .38 pistol stashed behind the seat of his pick-up.



    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I like what I read [:)]

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • DefenderDefender Member Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Oh God! The sky is falling in Oklahoma! Where's George Soros's cash when Sarah Brady needs it the most? Next the Brits will start to talk about gun rights! What's next, more freedom and liberty everywhere? Don't sweat politicians and the United Nations will work really hard to stop this worldwide freedom thing!

    Defender
    Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'll tell you what. No one will be searching my car without probable cause. That is the only way anyone will be finding anything in my car, and if it happens without my OK, (it won't happen), the law suit I slap 'em with for unlawful search will make it all worth the while.

    Laws don't work on these types... only money.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree with gunphreak. I'd sue them for illegally searching my vehicle. Might be tough, though. Keep in mind that the ACLU, who influences laws like illegal searches, privacy, etc. is strongly anti-gun. I don't think they'd stick up for a gun owner even if his civil liberties were trampled.

    The Brits claim that their media isn't as biased as ours. Reading this, I know that they are lying. But Anti-Americanism is something that can only make sense to someone who is naive or stupid enough to believe that gun control lowers crime rates.
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dsmith
    I agree with gunphreak. I'd sue them for illegally searching my vehicle. Might be tough, though. Keep in mind that the ACLU, who influences laws like illegal searches, privacy, etc. is strongly anti-gun. I don't think they'd stick up for a gun owner even if his civil liberties were trampled.
    <snip>


    They're anti-gun, but they have helped out gun owners when other rights were violated. I know for a fact they've helped out where a kid was suspended for wearing an NRA shooting camp shirt (1st Amendment violation). I think they've also helped out in illegal searches and seizures (4th Amendment violations).
  • DefenderDefender Member Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Fourth Amendment only protects us from GOVERNMENT searches.

    Private companies or persons can search subject to employment contracts. Open you car trunk or you get fired. You always have the right to refuse a search from a private person unless:

    1. The private person has made a citizen's arrest.

    2. The private person/s are bigger, stronger or better armed.

    3. Should any private person find contraband or evidence of a crime during even the most unreasonable or outrageous search, any evidence found CAN be used against you.


    Defender
    Private investigator licensed in AZ & CA that specializes in self defense cases.
  • Colonel PlinkColonel Plink Member Posts: 16,460
    edited November -1
    The owner of my company would rather we didn't bring firearms into the building. His company, his right, I guess. But anytime I bring up the topic of hunting or shooting, his reaction is "When are you gonna take me to the range?" He doesn't care what we have in our cars and he doesn't care what we do off the clock. Here's the kicker, kids. The guy's a lawyer. One in a million. God, I love my job. I've really got to take him out to the range.
  • GeoMan42GeoMan42 Member Posts: 209 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
    The owner of my company would rather we didn't bring firearms into the building. His company, his right, I guess. But anytime I bring up the topic of hunting or shooting, his reaction is "When are you gonna take me to the range?" He doesn't care what we have in our cars and he doesn't care what we do off the clock. Here's the kicker, kids. The guy's a lawyer. One in a million. God, I love my job. I've really got to take him out to the range.


    PLEASE DO!

    Geo
  • dj_fatstylesdj_fatstyles Member Posts: 13 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Let me throw this up in the air. Do you think that if people were alowed to bring guns into work (with the exception of bar, pubs, saloons and disco's <-- suicide factor) there would be less murders or more murders by ex disgruntled employees??? Also, think about this. If there were more guns in the workplace, those ex employees would be less inclined to come back and shoot up the place with the UH OH "ASSAULT RIFLE" (what a joke that is) I own an ak-47 and I use the thing to go hunting. piss off john kerrie. Like homeboi said, "guns are tools. Gun control is hitting your target." That will be all from the tinie little missspelt world of dj_fatstyles.

    "This is your life. Good to the last drop.
    Doesn't get any better than this.
    This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time."
    Tyler Durden-Fight Club
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Shooting somebody over getting fired? No. I've heard liberals argue that concealed carry would cause people to shoot people over stolen parking spaces and the like. Not happening. They did a study in Florida. I believe it is in the GOA's Fact Sheet. Something like 2 crimes commited by concealed carry individuals.
Sign In or Register to comment.