Employee gun law faces test

Comments Comment on this article17

By Robert E. Boczkiewicz
Published: November 14, 2007

DENVER — Oklahoma state officials took a step Tuesday to have an appeals court uphold the right of employees to have guns in locked vehicles parked where they work.

Advertisement

Gov. Brad Henry and Attorney General Drew Edmondson asked the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review an Oct. 4 ruling that overturned a 2004 state law giving that right to employees, except convicted felons.

In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern in Tulsa concluded the state law conflicts with the 1970 federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, designed to reduce workplace hazards. Kern ruled the federal law pre-empts that state law.

In a filing Tuesday at the Denver-based appeals court, Henry and Edmondson asked the court to determine whether Kern was correct. He issued an injunction against the law.

The appellate judges will decide whether to hear oral arguments. Their decision is not expected until 2008 or 2009.

What led to the change in law?
Oklahoma legislators passed the law after Weyerhaeuser Corp. fired eight workers in 2002 for violating company policy when guns were found in their vehicles at a timber mill in southeastern Oklahoma.

Rep. Jerry Ellis, the lead House author of the law, contends it is needed to enable employees to protect themselves.

After the law was passed, several employers at various times challenged its constitutionality and contended the law would undermine company policies to protect workers.

Another federal judge in Tulsa blocked the law from taking effect pending the outcome of the court challenge.


Toolbar sponsored by: David Stanley Ford
Bookmark and Share

Related Topics: U.S. State Government, U.S. Government, Business, Trials, Appellate Trials, Jobs and Labor, Workplace Safety


Comments

Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.

Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.

Leave a comment. Log in below or sign up (it's free).

   
Talacker, Norman - Nov 16, 2007 10:09 AM
Report as inappropriate
This law presents a difficult dichotomy in the field of government intrusion and upholding individual rights. On one hand, you have to applaud it for security a citizen's rights and security, but on the other hand, as a conservative, I always frown when the government interferes with a private business or individual's internal affairs and policy.
Talacker, Norman - Nov 16, 2007 10:09 AM
Report as inappropriate
Yes, my stance was apolitical in regards to the issue of this article. I do support the law, but I was simply enlightening Stacy as to the nature and applicability of Bill of Rights.
Talacker, Norman - Nov 16, 2007 8:59 AM
Report as inappropriate
David, you said: "But you're right, an employer can't fire you because you're a Methodist. But not because of the Constitution, but because of legislation (i.e. Civil Rights Act.)"_____Bingo! I don't actually think we disagree on anything; my only point is that if the state of Oklahoma can pass a law protecting the civil rights of employees, they can also pass an affirmative law that says employees may leave their firearms locked up in their vehicles. That is strictly my opinion; it will be interesting to see what the court decides.
Jason, Edmond - Nov 15, 2007 4:42 PM
Report as inappropriate
Jason, my friend, your fervor for this issue is clouding your analysis of my opinion. If you take a look anew at what I said, you'll see that I was simply stating the Constitution's right to bear arms (and free speech, etc.) only applies to Congress' ability to restrict those rights. At least that's what my copy says. Yes, there is nothing in the Constitution that says an employer can't fire you for being a Methodist or having a bible in your car. I'm still waiting for you to cite the clause in the bill of rights where it discusses what an employer can or can't do. But you're right, an employer can't fire you because you're a Methodist. But not because of the Constitution, but because of legislation (i.e. Civil Rights Act.) A well-lettered individual such as yourself surely can distinguish the two.
Talacker, Norman - Nov 15, 2007 11:01 AM
Report as inappropriate
Doug, we're not discussing what people SHOULD do, we're discussing what they have a RIGHT to do. Those are two different things. There are millions of people in this country right now who are probably doing things that I don't think they should--eating pizza for breakfast, voting Democrat, or watching American Idol. The question is do I have a positive right to curb those activities among my employees if I'm the employer?
Jason, Edmond - Nov 14, 2007 7:02 PM
Report as inappropriate
Where I work you have that option providing you want to park off the property and walk. If they do allow guns in locked vehicles there should be very tight controls on how those weapons are stored. I sure don't want to help arm the crackheads. As anyone that has had a stereo stolen can attest, a locked car doesn't mean jack. Even the police secure weapons to prevent theft.
Doug, Midwest City - Nov 14, 2007 5:22 PM
Report as inappropriate
So, David, your answer is an employer can fire any employee for about anything he doesn't like about the employee's personal preferences and/or life? And let's not get cute with that "shotgun at my desk" crap - no one is arguing for that and you know it. We are talking about an employee being able to secure a firearm in their private vehicle, not bringing it into the workplace with him/her. But let's get back to your fascinating constitutional analysis. Now that we've established an employer, in your opinion, can fire an employee who keeps a Bible in their private vehicle, what about if the employer doesn't like the employees race, or gender, or sexual preference? Would that be kosher with you?
Jason, Edmond - Nov 14, 2007 4:45 PM
Report as inappropriate
Oh, so the Constitution does mention employers? Sorry, I must have missed that clause. Or does the term Congress apply to business as well? I suppose my employer can't tell me that I can't keep a shotgun at my desk either? I suppose that policy violates the 2nd amendment...
Talacker, Norman - Nov 14, 2007 4:31 PM
Report as inappropriate
Hey Jason, OSHA might make some silly claim that David could pull the Bible out of his glove box and drop it on someone's head, and therefore, "workplace hazard" overrules Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No law is going to stop a crazy person if one intends to drop the Bible on someone's head, just like making murder illegal doesn't put a stop to murders.
Justin, Oklahoma City - Nov 14, 2007 3:39 PM
Report as inappropriate
So, David, let's just test your constitutional acumen. I'm an employer (let's suppose), and I don't like Christians, and prohibit the keeping of a Bible in my employees vehicles while on my property. I find out one of my fictional employees, let's call him "David", is a Methodist, and has stashed a King James Bible in his glove compartment while his car is parked in my parking lot. I fire David. David says I've violated his rights. Have I?
Jason, Edmond - Nov 14, 2007 3:12 PM
Report as inappropriate
Stacey, read your constitution. IT doesn't "Congress shall make no laws and employers shall make no policy that..." The government can't keep you from talking all about proprietary information, but that doesn't mean your company can't fire you.
Talacker, Norman - Nov 14, 2007 11:20 AM
Report as inappropriate
God-given rights can not be restricted, even if some man-made law says so.
Justin, Oklahoma City - Nov 14, 2007 11:20 AM
Report as inappropriate
Wayerhaeuser rapes the land and steals from our natural resources. The bureau of land management grants them generous concessions for large swaths of land in the Ouichita Mountains and the they clearcut 1/4x1/4 sections at a time. What used to be beautiful oak and pine forest becomes a ball field. Its all done in the name of paper pulp products but there are alternatives for this product. I would not cry one single tear if Weyerhaeuser left this state.
John, Stigler - Nov 14, 2007 11:10 AM
Report as inappropriate
Stacey, Congress has the authority to restrict our rights, and has done so on many ocassions. For instance, Congress has put limitations on the right of free speech by ruling that its "time, place and manner" can be restricted. States then take that authority and pass their own laws. Last year, based on such restrictions, Oklahoma passed a law that prohibited protesters from demonstrating within 500 feet of a funeral. Don't misunderstand me, I am fully supportive of an individual's right to own and carry arms. I am actually about to obtain a conceal carry permit. I am just saying that all laws can be challenged, so long as the claim is substantive and not frivolous.
jason, Oklahoma City - Nov 14, 2007 10:36 AM
Report as inappropriate
Stacey, they are trying to forget that right unfortunately. I guess if something happens where a person could have defended them self while going to and from or at work and they didn't have a gun due to company policy kinda makes the company liable doesn't it? It would be like making a company policy saying, you can't have them at home either. We wouldn't want someone to get mad at work and have access to bring one here.
rick - Nov 14, 2007 10:03 AM
Report as inappropriate
This should never be brought up in courts, it is already a law.Does anyone remember---"THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS"?
stacey, Jones - Nov 14, 2007 8:47 AM
Report as inappropriate