Tulsa World: Guns-in-vehicle law ruled valid

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Wednesday, February 10, 2010 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Guns-in-vehicle law ruled valid
The appeals court overturns a Tulsa judge's order on firearms at a job site.

By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent
Published: 2/19/2009 2:35 AM
Last Modified: 2/19/2009 2:47 AM

DENVER — Oklahoma's law requiring employers to allow workers to have guns in their locked vehicles at work is valid, an appeals court decided Wednesday.

The decision by the Denver-based court overturns a court order by a judge in Tulsa who in 2007 barred enforcement of the law.

A panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided 3-0 that U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern erred in concluding that the law is pre-empted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The appellate judges said Kern's ruling "interferes with Oklahoma's police powers and essentially promulgates a court-made safety standard — a standard that OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) has explicitly refrained from implementing on its own. Such action is beyond the province of federal courts."

The law sparked a national dispute over gun rights, pitting some employers and gun-control advocates against workers and the National Rifle Association.

"We're pleased with the court's decision," said Charlie Price, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. "It was our opinion that the law is constitutional, and the court agreed with us today."

The law was passed in two stages in 2004 and 2005 by legislators who were incensed that the Weyerhauser Corp. fired eight workers at a timber mill in southeastern Oklahoma because they had guns in their vehicles at the mill in violation of company policy.

Over the years, a changing lineup of employers, including the Whirlpool Corp., which later dropped out, and more recently ConocoPhillips, challenged the law, starting with a 2004 lawsuit. Kern issued his permanent injunction in response to the challenges.

Gov. Brad Henry and Edmondson, the defendants in the lawsuit, appealed Kern's ruling.

ConocoPhillips spokesman Rich Johnson said Wednesday that "the safety of our employees is a top priority of ConocoPhillips, and we are disappointed with today's decision."

He said the company has not had time to determine what its next step will be.

In an unusual step, Edmondson had an attorney for the National Rifle Association, instead of one of his own lawyers, argue the case before the appeals court in November. The court had allowed the NRA to submit arguments as a "friend of the court."

Price said the NRA "provided great help."

The court allowed the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and other safety and business groups to submit arguments as friends of the court in support of Kern's ruling.

Among the employers' arguments against the law were that it violated their constitutional due-process right to exclude people from company property and that the law constituted a "taking" of their property.

The appellate judges disagreed with those arguments but concluded that Kern's basis for blocking the law — preemption by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act — was wrong.

Kern had held that gun-related workplace violence was a "recognized hazard" under the act and that the state law impermissibly interfered with employers' ability to comply with the act.

"We disagree," the appellate judges wrote in a 23-page decision. "OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not to adopt a standard" banning firearms from the workplace.

The law does not conflict with any OSHA standard, the judges wrote.

"We understand (the) plaintiffs may disagree with the wisdom" of the law, the judges said. "Our task, however, is not to second-guess the Oklahoma legislature, but rather to interpret the Congressional intent behind the OSH Act and its general duty clause."

Edmondson's spokesman said the attorney general thinks last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a gun for private use "may have weighed in our favor in today's case."

It was the first Supreme Court decision to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias. By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

117 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 Isaac Parker, Tulsa (2/19/2009 4:07:08 AM) The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gets one right.
	Report Comment Michael Phillips, Tulsa (2/19/2009 6:10:52 AM) I think I will still boycott ConocoPhillips. August 1, 2005 was the last time I was in one of their stations.
	Report Comment Democrat, Tulsa County (2/19/2009 6:20:59 AM) It appears from this story's telling of the decision that the remedy for this unfortunate ruling is for OSHA to specifically prohibit guns from being brought onto a company's property. The court did reject the property right argument of the NRA attorneys acting on behalf of the state of Oklahoma. This is an easy problem to fix and I would urge that President Obama and Democrats in Congress work with OSHA to implement the needed change to enhance worker and public safety.
	Report Comment bearway, Jenks (2/19/2009 6:40:42 AM) It appears from this story's telling of the decision that the remedy for this fortunate ruling is non existant. OSHA should never prohibit guns from being brought onto a company's property by law abiding citizens. The court did not reject the property right argument of the NRA attorneys acting on behalf of the state of Oklahoma. They stated that by allowing the weapons, it was NOT a taking of property. This is an easy problem to fix and I would urge that President Obama and Democrats in Congress work with OSHA to butt out of our lives and leave our Second Amendment Rights alone.
	Report Comment bearway, Jenks (2/19/2009 6:44:03 AM) Yeah, I know. It's just for fun. I do think this was a victory for common sense. There are shootings at workplaces that could be stopped by a law abiding person with a gun. There is need for protection when traveling to and from work. When your life is in danger and seconds count, the Police are just minutes away.
	Report Comment Democrat, Tulsa County (2/19/2009 6:52:50 AM) My middle paragraph was in error. I WAS WRONG. My first and third paragraphs are rock solid. The remedy remains in the hands of OSHA. Common sense and public safety require that OSHA establishes a rule prohibiting guns on the property of companies regulated by interstate commerce.
	Report Comment Travis, Tahlequah (2/19/2009 6:54:36 AM) Democrat, Unless you have read more than this article on the decision nowhere did the court reject an NRA property right argument. "Among the employers' arguments against the law were that it violated their constitutional due-process right to exclude people from company property and that the law constituted a "taking" of their property." Gun control laws only ensure that the criminals have access to gun free zones, but do not worry, if the situation arises I would defend your right not to carry.
	Report Comment Travis, Tahlequah (2/19/2009 6:56:46 AM) Democrat, Sorry I was slow getting my post done, the error had already been corrected.
	Report Comment ol feller, Small Town (2/19/2009 7:09:10 AM) Common sense and public safety require that OSHA establishes a rule prohibiting guns on the property of companies regulated by interstate commerce. "Wrong" True common sense tells one a law on paper is worthless against a determined criminal. Employers would be well advised to use employees with CCW permits as extra security as they are vetted and trained.
	Report Comment Echos, Tulsa (2/19/2009 7:37:27 AM) Oh good grief Hurricane and Kerumba. Get real. You hear of people getting killed constantly by drive by shooting, fights and shooting. But really how many times do you even see a physical altercation at work???? Let alone shootout in the shop. You are being rediculous. If you dont want a gun, dont get one. If you dont want to work somewhere people have their handguns on their own personal property (their car) then get another job. But leave us alone
	Report Comment Skyhawk, Downtown Tulsa (2/19/2009 7:40:05 AM) So does this mean that Postal Workers will be able to take their guns to work? Sweet! They won't have very far to walk to go "Postal"
	Report Comment Innocent bystander, (2/19/2009 7:42:44 AM) Well the courts got another one right! Hallelujah, hallelujah. It's OK for all you anti-Bill of Rights persons to not like or have guns. Just don't try to force your twisted beliefs on the rest of us.
	Report Comment ol feller, Small Town (2/19/2009 7:45:04 AM) So does this mean that Postal Workers will be able to take their guns to work? Sweet! They won't have very far to walk to go "Postal" The post office is "Federal Land" a garenteed "gun free zone" or if you prefer a "target rich environment"!
	Report Comment ol feller, Small Town (2/19/2009 7:48:20 AM) I sure hope, for the safety of our general citizenry, that you are Right! Are you that afraid of honest citizens?
	Report Comment Angry Citizen!, Bluejacket (2/19/2009 8:10:11 AM) Nothing more terrifying than an honest citizen with a gun... Now freedom of speech, the right of due process, and that silly unreasonable search and seizure thing we ought to ban cause those rights frighten me....
	Report Comment ol feller, Small Town (2/19/2009 8:16:35 AM) kerugma, I'm sorry but a resopnsible citizen maintains the means (weaponry) to protect him or herself and his fellow humans from those who would prey on them. Read the story about the sheep and the sheepdog. If you prefer to be the sheep that is your choice but, you have no right to tell me I can't protect myself or those who have no protection.
	Report Comment Graychin, Eucha (2/19/2009 8:23:56 AM) Best post so far? Skyhawk!
	Report Comment ol feller, Small Town (2/19/2009 8:25:06 AM) To those who are afraid of my concealed firearm. Unless you are intent on criminal activity you have nothing to fear. Unfortunately you have consumed a diet of distrust and out right paranoia spewed by our deceptive media. Study something other than the MSM, you might be enlightened. Remember, "Ignorance can be cured but, Stupidity is terminal".
	Report Comment ol feller, Small Town (2/19/2009 8:36:40 AM) If You need protection,or feel a need to protect others,(outside of your trailer) you are in the Wrong Pasture. Just what I'm talking about. Well, I've been bested by one of the "ELITE" who actually knows nothing of what they are talking about. kerugma, you have just proven my point. Thank you.
	Report Comment tulsarick, (2/19/2009 8:37:04 AM) The Brady Center recently ranked Oklahoma with the "worst" gun laws in the Union. Of course their 'worst' is our 'best'. However how do we rank in violent crimes. D.C has the most restrictive gun laws but it`sd rated the most violent. Ironic since Mr Brady was shot there.
	Report Comment Sarge776, Tulsa (2/19/2009 8:48:31 AM) For the sake of a legal argument, I would like to see an audit of all the murders in which firearms were used, and then divide those murders into two categories. One (1), where a person who had his/her conceal carry license and committed murder and two (2)Where the murderer didn't have a conceal carry license. Then figure out which are more likely to commit a murder, those with a ccw license or those without. I think you anti-gun people might be overwhelmed and in disbelief that more murders are committed by people who are criminals than those who are legally able to carry a weapon.
	Report Comment ol feller, Small Town (2/19/2009 8:54:30 AM) Sarge776, Good Comment. It would be overwelming unless you run across the "My mind's made up so don't confuse me with facts" mentality.
	Report Comment BottleCap, BA (2/19/2009 8:59:30 AM) kerugma said "A responsible Citizen has no need for weaponry other than in their home for Protection or Hunting for Food. " It's not the need that is being disputed, it's the RIGHT! big difference. Besides, self defense has been recognized by the supreme court as a legitimate purpose (read need) by the people willing to do so.
	Report Comment jess, (2/19/2009 9:01:24 AM) I carry and have weapons in my house. Remember, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
	Report Comment jess, (2/19/2009 9:03:11 AM) Conoco/Phillips next step should be to obey the law!

25 of 117 comments displayed. | View All

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.