MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE
|
Saturday, November 21, 2009
|
WIRELESS
CONTACT US
|
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES
|
SIGN IN
SIGN OUT
|
MY PROFILE PAGE
|
MY ACCOUNT
Advanced Search
Current Conditions
53°
(Feels like 53°)
5-day local forecast
Home
News
Sports
Business
Special Projects
Blogs
Scene
Obits
Videos
Photos
Databases
Opinion
Comics
Jobs
Autos
Homes
Classifieds
Contact the Tulsa World
|
User Guide
|
About the Tulsa World
|
FAQ & Help
|
Advertise with us
|
Create an Online Account
|
Email Newsletters
|
RSS
|
Wireless
Local
|
State
|
US/World
|
Education
|
Health
|
Religion
|
Courts
|
Government
|
Stimulus Tracker
|
Weather
|
Births
|
Divorces
|
Marriages
OU
|
OSU
|
TU
|
ORU
|
High Schools
|
College Football
|
College Basketball
|
Blogs
|
Out Pick the Picker Contest & Blog
|
NFL
|
Fantasy
|
Pros
|
Golf
|
Outdoors
|
Motor Sports
|
All
Stocks
|
Aerospace
|
Agriculture
|
Employment
|
Energy
|
Real Estate
|
Finance
|
Tech
|
Retail
|
Transportation
|
FYI
|
Consumer Awareness
|
Action Line
Special Projects
|
The Homicide Report
|
The SemGroup Collapse
|
Puppy Profits
|
The Life of Oral Roberts
|
The Life of Will Rogers
Sports
|
Scene
|
Opinion
|
Photo
Dining In
|
Dining Out
|
Movies
|
Music
|
On TV
|
The Arts
|
Style
|
People
|
Home
|
Health
|
Family
|
Books
|
Travel
|
Celebrations
|
Blogs
Death Notices
|
Paid Obituaries
Videos
|
Blogs
Photos
|
Blogs
|
Order photo and page reproductions
Databases
|
State Salaries
|
City Salaries
|
Gas Station Violations
|
Crime Tracker
|
State Restaurant Inspection Reports
Editorials
|
Letters
|
Bruce Plante's Political Cartoons
|
Readers Forum
|
Wayne Greene's Blog
|
Mike Jones' Blog
|
Stems & Pieces
Comics Kingdom Online
|
Comics from the Tulsa World Print Edition
Job Search
|
Career Resources
|
Upload/Modify Resume
|
Hiring Companies
|
Career Fairs
|
Account Profile
|
Job Alerts
|
Employer Login
My Saved Searches
|
My Saved Ads
|
Boats
|
Motorcycles
|
Recreational Vehicles
|
Airplanes
|
Classic Cars
|
ATV's
|
Scooters
|
Sell Your Car
Property Search
|
Commercial Property
|
Foreclosures
|
World of Homes
|
Find a Realtor
|
Real Estate Login
Garage Sales
|
Pets
|
Post An Ad
|
Upload a Photo
|
Help & FAQ
Home
>
News
> Article
Newspaper View
Print
Email
Comment
RSS
Bookmark
If you would like to bookmark this article you will need to
Login
to your tulsaworld.com account
close
Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Published:
10/6/2007 2:10 AM
Last Modified: 10/6/2007 2:10 AM
He issues an injunction against an Oklahoma law.
A Tulsa federal judge has ruled against the state in its attempt to make sure employees can take guns onto their employers' property.
U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.
Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.
Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."
Whirlpool, which later bowed out of the case, filed the lawsuit on Oct. 27, 2004, against Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Gov. Brad Henry.
The company challenged amendments to the state firearms and self-defense laws, which, had they gone into effect, would have prevented business owners from prohibiting guns inside locked vehicles on company property.
Whirlpool alleged that the legislation, which was to go into effect on Nov. 1, 2004, was unconstitutional and would undermine its policies to protect its workers.
Then-U.S. Chief District Judge Sven Erik Holmes issued a temporary restraining order on Oct. 29, 2004,
which prevented the amendments from going into effect while the court further analyzed the issues.
In June 2005, Henry signed HB 1243, which exempts employers from legal liability if the use of a gun stored in a worker's vehicle results in injury or death at the work site because of the acts of a third party.
Whirlpool Corp. opted out of the Tulsa lawsuit in November 2004, and the Williams Cos. and ConocoPhillips took over as the primary plaintiffs.
Williams later dropped out of the lawsuit, leaving ConocoPhillips, which is based in Houston but employs more than 3,000 people in Oklahoma, to carry on with the case.
Tulsa attorney Steve Broussard, representing ConocoPhillips, said Friday that the company is pleased with the ruling.
Kern concluded that the proposed changes to Oklahoma law conflict with -- and are legally pre-empted by -- the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act.
That federal law requires employers to lessen hazards in their workplaces that could lead to death or serious bodily harm. The measure also encourages employers to prevent gun-related workplace injuries.
According to Kern's opinion, Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota and Kentucky have passed similar laws, while 13 states have rejected such measures.
Kern's opinion is the first to address the constitutionality of these laws, it says.
Rep. Jerry Ellis, D-Valliant, the principal author of the 2004 bill in the House, said Friday, "I guess federal judges can do anything they want. They don't have to worry about the voters."
He said disgruntled workers who shoot people in the workplace are going to do so no matter what laws are on the books.
Ellis said this week's decision 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.
Ellis also said the ruling decreases the chances that employees can protect themselves on the way home from work.
Assistant Attorney General Sherry Todd said Friday that Kern's opinion likely will be appealed.
Roughly 1,000 people are killed at work each year, and guns are used in 80 percent of those deaths, according to the American Bar Association.
The ABA went on record earlier this year supporting the right of employers "to exclude from the workplace and other private property persons in possession of firearms or other weapons."
Proponents of such company policies point to a 2003 massacre in Mississippi.
In July 2003, a Lockheed Martin employee abruptly left a training session at the company's Meridian, Miss., plant and retrieved a shotgun and semiautomatic rifle from his truck in the employee parking lot.
He opened fire on co-workers, killing six and wounding eight. Afterward, authorities retrieved three more guns from his truck.
Brian Siebel, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was quoted by the Associated Press earlier this year as saying, "Unfortunately, this is an all-too-common event. A gun is available in the parking lot for an employee who may be unstable and who reaches a snapping point."
Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has embarked on a state-by-state campaign to get legislatures to enact laws that require employers to allow their workers to bring guns onto company parking lots.
"When you get off work at 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock and you're driving home, you have the right to protect yourself if you're accosted on the highway," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president has said.
The amendments to Oklahoma law were made after forest products giant Weyerhauser Corp. fired eight employees in 2002 when guns were found in their cars on company lots in Oklahoma. Federal courts later upheld the firings.
David Harper 581-8359
david.harper@tulsaworld.com
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
Newspaper View
Print
Email
Comment
RSS
Bookmark
If you would like to bookmark this article you will need to
Login
to your tulsaworld.com account
close
Reader Comments
Show: Most Recent Comment First
Add your comment
20
comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!
Reporting Comments
If you see a comment that violates our
terms and conditions
, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. --
Web Editor Jason Collington
Report Comment
goguns
, (10/6/2007 6:46:08 AM)
I wonder if the people who have killed others on the job had permits? I would say no so what is the problem. People who are going to kill someone are going to kill someone. Hello their is a law against that and it hasnt slowed anyone down. Should the company be held responsible? Not if they have a permit. I dont see why the liability would change just because we can obtain a permit and legally have a firearm
Report Comment
goguns
, (10/6/2007 6:47:20 AM)
As far as I am aware firearms have never been allowed in the workplace so I doubt if that is going to make us any safer than we have been.
Report Comment
Graychin
, Eucha (10/6/2007 8:28:32 AM)
I don't see why employers should be held liable for the acts of crazed employees on company property, but they are. A business wanting to locate a factory in Oklahoma has to consider its exposure to liability. If the potential employees in Oklahoma would be packing heat in large numbers, that would likely be enough to swing the decision about where to locate the business. I may not have a job, but I've got my gun!
Report Comment
Ron B
, Broken Arrow (10/6/2007 8:40:16 AM)
I am amazed at the logic here. Does this judge think a person intent upon shooting people on the job will be detered by a company policy against guns? No, he will be enboldened knowing HE has the ONLY weapon in the place. Now, what about people with a permit, who cannot protect themselves on the drive to and from work? Will companies be held liable should they be injured or killed in a situation in which their weapon might have saved them? Bottom line is that all these rules apply only to law abiding citizens ---criminals do whatever they please anyway. You would think a judge might be smart enough to know that, but I guess crime keeps them in a job.
Report Comment
safety first
, Tulsa (10/6/2007 9:23:30 AM)
I'll bet judge? kern carries a gun.
Report Comment
Patriot
, (10/6/2007 9:40:24 AM)
I would rather be tried by a jury of twelve than carried by six.
Report Comment
Donald
, Midwest City (10/6/2007 10:20:50 AM)
No law is going to stop some one that is going to do somthing wrong. He is already doing somthing wrong. this just keeps law abiding people from protecting them selfs.
Report Comment
Reed Robbins
, (10/6/2007 11:14:18 AM)
When considering the constitutionality of the law I guess the 'shall not be infringed' part of the 2nd Amendment was ignored.
Report Comment
safety first
, Tulsa (10/6/2007 2:41:54 PM)
: something is wrong with our constitution when one gun control judge can overturn our state laws.
The constitution leaves these matters to the states to decide, not one judge.
Report Comment
JxR
, (10/6/2007 3:24:46 PM)
A more coherent argument could be made that the "1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act" is unconstitutional (see U.S. Const. Art. 1 Section 8).
Report Comment
Bob Spencer
, Tulsa (10/6/2007 3:42:29 PM)
I recently moved from Florida had I known how dangerous Tulsa is at night I don't think I would have moved here. Ha ha.
If you Tulsans are tired of the rest of the country looking at you like hicks grow up. Mr LaPierre people in Miami and Chicago have not found the need to try to pass laws like this, is Tulsa more dangerous? Rep Ellis maybe Congress should close Interstates going into Oklahoma and advise vehicles that Oklahoma is to shunned and avoided because it is too dangerous. This is the 21st century not 1885.
Report Comment
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE GUNS DON'T
, Tulsa (10/7/2007 12:25:57 PM)
Here's another angle to play. If you don't draw attention to yourself, it's doubtful this issue will ever come up. Clearly the totality of the circumstances have not been evaluated as mentioned. The overwhelming rush of power must entertain that criminal minded employee who feels the need to bring a gun to work and cause harm to co-workers. I will and would never go anywhere in this dangerous city without my gun. When seconds count, a police officer is minutes away! Remember this people and ask yourself what is your life worth? Just like these bleeding heart people that think guns kill people I'll bet they'd thought different had they been at VA tech the day that man herded them like sheep to their death. Had one armed person challenged him, a few lives may have been the cost, but a few is better than all that were lost. We need to make a difference and express our disgust.
Report Comment
I Declare
, (10/9/2007 12:41:45 PM)
When did the 2nd Amendment trump all other rights, such as property rights? A property owner should be able to restrict access to their property, it is a fundamental element of the US Constitution. If an employer does not want guns in the parking lot, then the employee can choose to work there or not, their choice. So, if you are afraid to drive home without the benefit of a gun, go to work in a place that allows you to have a gun. Simple. But, don't take away my rights as a property owner.
Report Comment
lincmercguy
, (10/9/2007 1:49:34 PM)
I Declare, a vehicle is still considered the property of an owner. The employer has the right to ban people from bringing firearms into the workplace, but their vehicle does not become the company's property when it drives onto the company's parking lot.
Report Comment
kdlawrence
, Hoosiertown (10/9/2007 11:21:10 PM)
One must wonder at the logic of protecting someone by removing his tools of defense.
Report Comment
xxx
, xxx (10/23/2007 11:37:00 AM)
test
Report Comment
Wesley Horton
, Claremore, OK (10/24/2007 9:26:52 AM)
To I declare and others. .
Perhaps you have not considered the import of this decision. The issue came down to an employer, Wehyerhouser, running dogs around all the employees cars. When the dog hit for "firearms" the employer forced all the employees to open their cars and submit to an illegal warrentless search by their "security agents." Now, mind you, they had signed no such consent when they were hired and went to work for the company.
The basic issue here is not so much firearms, it is the fourth amendment to the Constitution. If your employer can force you to submit your car to searches while in "their" parking lot, then they can terminate you for just about anything. Don't think so? Some employeers are forbidding employees from smoking on their property. Now they can search your car and if they find the verboten ciggarettes, you can be fired.
Get it now? How long will it be before employers insist they can search your home without a warrent?
Report Comment
O.C.
, Seatonville (11/11/2007 5:25:56 PM)
Another case of the politicans being paid off by the criminal for protection.
Report Comment
Jarhead
, (11/13/2007 11:55:56 PM)
I worked for an IT company on Tulsa airport grounds that severely limited my rights as an Oklahoma CCW permit holder. I was told that it was because I was on airport grounds. So let me get this correct; I can carry in the actual airport itself right up to but not past the security checkpoint but not in my own car out in the parking lot. “Yes” I did verify that I could do that with airport Police too. I simply found a job with another fortune 500 company downtown. I pay for my own parking and nobody can dictate what I do on my own rented spot. While I support the idea that an employer can restrict whatever they desire in the actual office, my car is my property. Further, any business that restricts my ability to protect my family or self does not deserve my patronage. I not only have the right to protect the ones I love, I have a God mandated responsibility. Until we get a handle on crime, illegal immigration etc. we will continue to see the yearly CCW permit requests skyrocket as well they should. Well Duh!
Report Comment
Rob
, McDonough (3/1/2008 8:48:25 AM)
Screw the parking lot.
If the employees in the training session at Lockheed Martin had been carrying at work that situation might have turned out differently.
Also, what idiot would believe that prohibiting firearms from being kept in parked cars would have prevented that evil nitjob from being the shotguns to work in the first place! People stop people, not laws.
Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must
sign in to Tulsaworld.com
. If you do not have a site account, you can
create an account for free
.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments made yesterday
1,932
Total Comments
895,977
Register to make reader comments
1) Tulsa woman charged, arrested in baby's death
2) White House at odds with bishops over abortion
3) Judge rules Tulsa police officer bound over for trial
4) City is hiring — in certain departments
5) Police catch two suspects after chase
6) OCU receives $1 million from late wife of local jeweler
7) Horse sensitivity: Show at OSU pushes preserve for mustangs
8) Current and former Tulsa mayors announce library
9) Senate OKs bill to help veterans
10) Revamp planned at Union
View the top 50
These are the most viewed stories in the last 24 hours.
1) Report: Poor spend more of income on taxes
2) White House at odds with bishops over abortion
3) Sarah Palin’s book tour to stop in Norman
4) Inhofe bid to thwart Gitmo transfer killed
5) Student jailed in drug-deal killing
6) Behind missed Gitmo deadline: No one wants jailees
7) Couple arrested after foster kids found in cold
8) Police policy violates statute
9) Teen burglary suspects jailed in Tulsa break-in
10) Arrest at Walmart leads to charges of racism
View the top 50
These are the top stories that have been commented on in the past 7 days.
1) City is hiring — in certain departments
2) Horse sensitivity: Show at OSU pushes preserve for mustangs
3) Retired Pocola teacher dies while trying to kill armadillo
4) Tulsa woman charged, arrested in baby's death
5) Seven indicted in federal drug sting in Cherokee County
6) Student jailed in drug-deal killing
7) Revamp planned at Union
8) Our daylight 'savings' is already spent
9) Elephant exam
10) Current and former Tulsa mayors announce library
View the top 50
These are the top stories that have been emailed in the past 24 hours.
Home
|
About Tulsa World
|
Advertise With Us
|
Privacy
|
Usage Agreement
|
FAQ and Help
|
Contact Us
|
Today's Headlines
Copyright
© 2009, World Publishing Co. All rights reserved.
Advanced Search