no guns on property or else!!!!!!

[nodaywithout]

My Employer has it stated in my hand book that if i so much as have a gun in my car, loaded or not i will be terminated!
After reading the 2005 version of the oklahoma self defense act i read the 2006 (the 2006 is not on this site yet) and found this on page 49....

go to this webpage look at page 48 & 49 and let me know what you think (this section will also address some of the RV questions for Oklahoma)

http://www.osbi.state.ok.us/PublicServices/SDA/SDA_Lawbook_2006.pdf

[cranners99]

It seems that the law is on your side. I'm not sure of your relationship with your employer but some how their attention needs to be brought to those sections.

I'm not a lawyer, but the way it reads to me is that the employer can't put that in your handbook and if they do terminate you then you can take them to court.

Hopefully educating the employer will be enough.

Good Luck

[Bill of Rights]

It might be worth your while to hire an attorney to write your employer a letter and inform him that he/she (the attorney) has been retained anonymously to make your employer aware of the discrepancy between employer policy and state law. I don't know what the rate would be but if you're hiring him/her solely to write a letter for you, I can't imagine it'd be too expensive. May be worth your while, too, since fighting even a wrongful termination is a lot more expensive than an hour of an attorney's time.

Good luck! Let us know what happens, too, please? :)

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

I think what you're running up against is the distinction between public law, and private property rights. The statute defines your rights to possess, transport, and carry in public. A private property owner, such as your employer, can impose its own rules on its own property. So, if your employer is so inclined, it can prohibit keeping guns in cars parked on, or passing across its property. The fact that the gun is kept in a vehicle is irrelevant, notwithstanding the fact that the State has a law about guns in vehicles. It's actually the same as a store posting a notice prohibiting the carrying of guns on its property. In that case, the private property owners rights trump the CCW permit allowing you to carry.

I think there is a move afoot in some States to require employers to allow employees to keep guns in the cars. However, I can't remember the details of that situation, and I'm doubtful of the constitutionality of any such law.

[Bill of Rights]

George, what of the private property rights of the owner of the car? Do his property rights evaporate because of where the car is parked? Would the same criteria apply if the employer was to make a rule that no Bibles are permitted in employee vehicles?

Sorry, I can't agree with this interpretation.

Standard disclaimer: IANAL

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

Would the same criteria apply if the employer was to make a rule that no Bibles are permitted in employee vehicles?

Well, St. Michael, you sure do know how to frame the issue!

One of the most difficult concepts for people to come to terms with is that of the distinction between public and private when it comes to our fundamental constitutional rights. Basically, the Constitution and Bill of Rights deals with the government's relationship with its citizens and the States, not the relationships between citizens. At one time, this distinction was a lot clearer than it is today. A long string of Supreme Court cases have obscured the distinction in areas such as civil rights. But, so far, our 2nd Amendment right bars infringement by the government, not by other citizens.

Now, as to your question about the bible, that involves a 1st Amendment right. Those rights have been extended by court decisions to apply in certain situations to relationships between citizens. For example, political (free) speech has been sanctioned in public gathering areas such as shopping malls, and employees wearing crosses and stars of David have been sanctioned in the work place. So, since the Bible is an incident of the employees religion, and poses no possible threat or danger to anyone, my guess is that courts would uphold an employees right to keep a
bible in the employees car.

To sum up, when the 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it means shall not be infringed by the government. To date, the courts have not extended that to include relationships between citizens.

I think I'm as strong a proponent of the 2nd Amendment as you could find. But, if I decide that I don't want guns in my house, on my property, or in cars parked on my property, I think I have that right. The same is true if I own business property. The fact that I have employees doesn't change that. But, if I depended on government subsidies or grants in my business, it might.

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks for the compliment (I think), George! :)

OK, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Amendment that specifies "Congress shall make no law..." applies to citizen-to-citizen relations, but the one that simply says, "...shall not be infringed." applies only to government to citizen issues.

In which amendment they happen to appear should be our least concern, so long as that number is 10 or less. We have a fundamental right to freedom of religion. We have a fundamental RKBA with which we protect th elife . Both predate the Constitution and both are protected.

Also, you as the private owner of a home or even the private owner of a business have absolute, unquestionable rights on your property, yes, but you cannot, in a business open to the public, discriminate and say "no Blacks", for example, or "no Jews". If you want to tell me that I have to leave when I have a gun on my person on your property, yes, you have that right. However, my car is my property, and if I have a gun in the trunk, out of sight, and you, the owner of the parking lot, decide to send a "sniffer" dog through to search for the scent of gunpowder, and the dog alerts on my car, do you have the right to search it without my consent? For that matter, do you have the right to have ME searched just because I'm on your property? (as in "no probable cause" to believe I've committed any crime)

I realize that in text I may come across as angry sometimes and sarcastic at others. This is usually unintentional, as it is in this post if it's present. I have no wish to be confrontational, but rather to understand just exactly WTF has happened to good law, good common sense, and to our country that those lines to which you refer have become so blurred.

Blessings,
M

[nodaywithout]

What do you think about this......No one can stop your freedom of speech, and no form of government can infringe upon your rights as a gun owner (except convicts) but what if you throw the first and second amend together....
I.E. Me owning a gun, and having it in my car (fyi this hole situation is hypothetical seeing as how i walk to work the whole 3 blocks) is me acting on my freedom of speech by simply stating I support the second amend in it's entirety.

also fyi i suck at seplling :lol:

[VegasGeorge]

Thanks for the compliment (I think), George! :)

OK, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Amendment that specifies "Congress shall make no law..." applies to citizen-to-citizen relations, but the one that simply says, "...shall not be infringed." applies only to government to citizen issues.

Your welcome!

You're closer, but not quite there yet. Originally the entire Bill of Rights defined Federal Government vs. Citizen relations. Not, Citizen vs. Citizen relations. The 14th Amendment expanded that to Federal & State vs. Citizen relations. More recently, courts and statutes have expanded it further in 1st Amendment areas to include some Citizen vs. Citizen relations. But, as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, it is still only Federal & State vs. Citizen relations that are defined. Capiche?

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks for the compliment (I think), George! :)

OK, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Amendment that specifies "Congress shall make no law..." applies to citizen-to-citizen relations, but the one that simply says, "...shall not be infringed." applies only to government to citizen issues.

Your welcome!

You're closer, but not quite there yet. Originally the entire Bill of Rights defined Federal Government vs. Citizen relations. Not, Citizen vs. Citizen relations. The 14th Amendment expanded that to Federal & State vs. Citizen relations. More recently, courts and statutes have expanded it further in 1st Amendment areas to include some Citizen vs. Citizen relations. But, as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, it is still only Federal & State vs. Citizen relations that are defined. Capiche?

Oh, I understand what you're telling me, yes. What I don't understand is how the original intent got perverted into the... um... "cluster scramble" it is now. Many will say "Activist judges!" and throw that buzzword around, but what I'm getting at is that at one time, the Alpha and Omega of Congressional debate centered on a single question, "Is it Constitutional?", and while the debate might stretch to include strict vs. broad interpretation, there was no question in anyone's mind that "unConstitutional" meant exactly that. I recently read, courtesy of Lady Di, a story about Sen. and Col. David Crockett of Tennessee and one Mr. Horace Bunce, and how Mr. Bunce successfully convinced Col. Crockett of the unConstitutionality of a vote of his. Today, we almost never hear of that question being raised, only who gets the most "pork" from the porkbarrel legislation being proposed.

"Congress shall make no law..." seems pretty cut and dried to me: The Congress of the United States is forbidden to take the described and prohibited actions. Other bodies (State legislatures?) are not similarly bound, nor is anyone.

Alternatively, the 2A makes no distinction whatsoever, and thus, no one may infringe upon that right in any way, shape or form and remain within the law.

Why is this so difficult for those so-called learned men and women in Congress to understand and act accordingly?

Blessings,
M

[Raccoon]

A private property owner, such as your employer, can impose its own rules on its own property. So, if your employer is so inclined, it can prohibit keeping guns in cars parked on, or passing across its property.


TITLE 21 § 1290.22. Business owner’s rights

BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHTS

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.

B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle.

Seems to me that paragraph "B" covers the ability of private property owners to forbid people from locking a weapon in their car on the private property. But I know that companies will use other "justification" to fire you if they want you gone. I like the hire a lawyer to represent an annonymous employee idea myself.

[VegasGeorge]

TITLE 21 § 1290.22. Business owner’s rights

BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHTS

Very good, Raccoon! That State statute steps in and defines the relationship between citizens with respect to keeping guns in locked vehicles. So, it's specifically allowed by statute in Oklahoma. It's no longer a constitutional issue there at all. It's statutory.

[nodaywithout]

The problem i run into is that i do not want to hire a lawyer to do so if is comes out of my pocket. now from what i gather does the sda say that if i were fired for such a thing the company would then have to pay loss wages and such?

[Raccoon]

Well, it looks to me like the state statutes allow for this. But, as always, dont rely on my advice, which I am not giving any of. . .

Other online sites have been sued for offering advice, so we have placed a disclaimer at the bottom of each page. What I am saying is that if you were to take this statute and go see a lawyer, it would be a place to start.

[Bill of Rights]

The problem i run into is that i do not want to hire a lawyer to do so if is comes out of my pocket. now from what i gather does the sda say that if i were fired for such a thing the company would then have to pay loss wages and such?

Noday, you might at least call a few and ask what they would charge to write a letter for you. It may be cheap enough that you would not mind the cost. Find some in your phone book for whom "first consultation is free", that way you can explain your situation and not have it cost anything.

Blessings,
M

[nodaywithout]

Excellent, that works for me.

[VegasGeorge]

This new article on our website seems to directly address this Oklahoma issue. http://carryconcealed.net/articles/k1047_BC_OK_GunLawInjunction_10_06_0450-ART149.html

It seems as if a Federal Judge has overruled the Oklahoma statutes.

[Bill of Rights]

Two things come to mind:

Rep. Jerry Ellis, D-Valliant, was the principal author of the 2004 bill in the House.

"I guess federal judges can do anything they want. They don't have to worry about the voters," Ellis said.

He said the ruling increases the chances that someone will kill a lot of people before law enforcement personnel can respond to a 911 call.

"A hand on a gun is better than a cop on the phone," he said.
(above emphasis mine-M)

Kinda says it all, don't it?

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a 93-page written order in which he said amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs

When the appeal is filed, it seems to me that the first thing is to prove (via http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen ) that the federal law doesn't protect employees at their jobs or anywhere else. The second thing is that, while the land is the employer's property, the car is the employee's, and to my knowledge, the right to protect one's own life supersedes anyone's rights of land ownership. (oh, there I go thinking in "common sense" again!) Third, someone needs to push the claim we've all heard repeatedly, that if you are disarmed by a workplace or store policy, the responsibility for your safety falls to the one who insisted you not be able to keep that responsibility yourself.

An end needs to be put to unConstitutional infringements of every stripe!

Blessings,
M

[junglebob]

What is even worse than employers saying that employees can not carry on their property is the government doing it through legislation.

What if you have a private school or day care business and the government prohibits carry on school grounds or day care property. You are disarmed on your own property. The same goes for blanket prohibition on church property. At least let the individual business or church decide. Our church's pastor got death threats several years ago after a protest at a "homosexual wedding event" held in a public area of a local university. This type of law makes the pastor defenseless even though he and 100% of his congregation may approve of him carrying.

[Bill of Rights]

Junglebob:
I agree with you that you should not be denied your rights to self-defense or property. I agree with you that an employer should not have say over what you're permitted to have in your car, even on their lot. I agree with you that blanket law should not require interpretation to answer whether or not the personal owner of a school should be allowed to carry a weapon on his own property just because it happens to be a particular kind of building.

Sadly, I think that the only answer is to move out of Ill-annoy and leave it to the socialists, and let the freedom-loving Americans live elsewhere.

I don't think you should have to do this, but therein lies the difference between idealism and realism. Sorry, man.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

I absolutely agree that employers should allow employees to carry firearms on their persons, or keep them in their cars. But, that's just my opinion.

I waffle on the concept of requiring employers to allow guns in the workplace. It's my libertarian roots showing, I think. I struggle with the competing rights of the employer to run his shop and property the way he wants, and the right of the employee to bear arms. Employment, after all, is voluntary. If the employee doesn't like the employer's rules, he can seek work elsewhere. And, the property is owned by the employer. The rights of ownership and control of one's own property are pretty fundamental.

I'm just not settled on this issue.

[Bill of Rights]

They cannot and should not be able to be required to allow guns on their private property, I would agree. However, if the employee is injured or worse because of that policy, I would say they assume the responsibility for his safety, although yes, you are correct as well that no one is required to remain employed at a particular location.

However, while the employee may be prohibited from carrying his weapon inside the place of employment, the employer's sway over his parking lot does not extend to the employee's drive to or from work, but the employee who cannot keep his weapon in his vehicle is disarmed during those travels as well. Unless, of course, the employer wants to place safe-storage lockers at the entrance to his parking lot and provide security over the weapons he requires to be stored therein.

If I make the decision to carry a firearm, which I have, I must accept the responsibility that accompanies that decision; to use it responsibly and to ensure that if it leaves it's holster, it does so under my control and for legitimate purposes only.

If an employer makes a decision that his employees must be disarmed on their way to and from work because they park in his parking lot, I think they must accept the responsibility that accompanies that decision as well; to provide the disarmed employee with protection until such time as he is allowed to again protect himself. To most employers, this solution is untenable, so it likely would be a much better business decision for them to just leave the law-abiding, peaceable CCW holders alone.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

[quote="St.Michael"] Unless, of course, the employer wants to place safe-storage lockers at the entrance to his parking lot and provide security over the weapons he requires to be stored therein./quote]

I've actually given this idea some thought. Not in the employer parking lot context, but in the courthouse (or other public public building) context. I think that ruling certain places where we all have to go to conduct day-to-day business "OFF LIMITS" to guns is an unreasonable restraint on our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. As you point out, compliance with that restriction prevents us from bearing arms up to the door (or parking lot entrance), and leaves us unarmed when we leave. I started thinking about this issue several months ago when I had jury duty here in Las Vegas. The jurors parking lot is about 4 blocks from the courthouse, requiring a walk through seemingly dangerous part of town.

Maybe the idea of requiring gun check facilities is a reasonable alternative?

[Bill of Rights]

Unless, of course, the employer wants to place safe-storage lockers at the entrance to his parking lot and provide security over the weapons he requires to be stored therein.

I've actually given this idea some thought. Not in the employer parking lot context, but in the courthouse (or other public public building) context. I think that ruling certain places where we all have to go to conduct day-to-day business "OFF LIMITS" to guns is an unreasonable restraint on our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. As you point out, compliance with that restriction prevents us from bearing arms up to the door (or parking lot entrance), and leaves us unarmed when we leave. I startee thinking about this issue several months ago when I had jury duty here in Las Vegas. The jurors parking lot is about 4 blocks from the courthouse, requiring a walk through seemingly dangerous part of town.

Maybe the idea of requiring gun check facilities is a reasonable alternative?

(handwaggle) It would be a reasonable compromise, yes, if we take "reasonable" in the same sense we do "Reasonable gun control", "reasonable restrictions", etc. I recall reading the quote that any time you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you lose, or something very close to that. People sat down to negotiate the RKBA, and as a result, we now are all part-owners of buildings in which we cannot be armed, but our servants, the various city, county, state, and federal representatives we hired on one of the last several elections, do so with immunity from the laws, written into the laws. To you, Judge Dread, Raccoon, etc., my apologies in advance for lumping the whole group together as part and parcel, but simply put, every public servant puts his britches on one leg at a time, and not a one can say his fecal matter is non-odoriferous, any more than can I, to which my wife will attest, much to her chagrin. Since we all have the same limitations and frailties, I ask as have others, why do the elected and hired public servants have an exemption for themselves and the common people must pass a metal detector in most places? (Case in point: Congressman Jim Webb of Virginia, whose aide was found to be in possession of the Congressman's handgun upon entering the Capitol building)

On private property, I would support rulings stating that the RKBA must be respected, such that if a property owner wishes to restrict guns from both the cars of his employees and the employees themselves, said owner must provide safe storage as well as security for the disarmed employees. Public property, I would not. What, I'm safe to carry in a public park, where there are children, adults, animals, nearby buildings... I'm safe to carry in Wal Mart, with all that product... but I'm not safe to carry in the presence of my elected representatives? Of what are they afraid?

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

I recall reading the quote that any time you sit down to negotiate something you already have, you lose, or something very close to that.

Yes, I believe that to be true. But, it's not at all clear that you already have the right to bring a gun onto someone else's property against their wishes. That is certainly true in the case of private property. Publicly owned property presents a more difficult question. Personally, I see no justification for government to exempt itself from Constitutional constraints. I think the 2nd Amendment should be respected even more strongly in public places. A courthouse might be an exception. We expect courthouses to be frequented by criminals. So, it is arguably reasonable to require everyone entering the courthouse to check their arms at the door. But, I think that's a stretch.

[Bill of Rights]

Personally, I see no justification for government to exempt itself from Constitutional constraints. I think the 2nd Amendment should be respected even more strongly in public places. A courthouse might be an exception. We expect courthouses to be frequented by criminals. So, it is arguably reasonable to require everyone entering the courthouse to check their arms at the door. But, I think that's a stretch.
(grins) I'm arguing it. :) Simply, the criminals will normally be escorted while in the courthouse by bailiffs, yes? Further, those bailiffs are armed, as are any LEOs on duty there. So... what happens when Johnny Felon decides to go for one of the LEOs or one of the bailiff's guns?

Dingdingdingding! We have a winner! Johnny Felon changes his name to Johnny Corpse, if he's lucky, or Johnny, Bubba's b***h, if not.
We cannot expect that such places will be 100% safe, ever, but If I make the decision to carry a firearm, which I have, I must accept the responsibility that accompanies that decision; to use it responsibly and to ensure that if it leaves it's holster, it does so under my control and for legitimate purposes only.
So, if I'm in the courthouse armed, it is my responsibility to keep myself out of Johnny Felon's reach, or maybe it's the bailiff's responsibility to keep him away from where the public is passing back and forth.

To me, it makes no sense at all to disarm those who obey the law because of those who do not. So yeah, requiring everyone entering the courthouse to check their weapon at the door is, to put it mildly, "a stretch".

Blessings,
M

[nodaywithout]

overall i would be happy with individual gun safes for each employee that wants one, this way there are no guns inside the company operations center and i would have a way to protect me on my walk home at 2330 (or so) it is not too comforting knowing simply because my employer will not allow firearms on it's property, i can not have a last means of defense available.

as someone said earlier "a gun in a hand, is better than a cop on the phone."