Time for a pole - help me out, its for school

[Okla-homey]

There is a lawsuit pending in Oklahoma in which two companies (Williams and Conoco) are suing the state because of the effect of a recently enacted state law which basically makes it illegal for a property owner, business, employer, etc. to deny visitors, employees, customers, etc. the right to leave a gun locked in their vehicle in the parking lot.

It gets pretty deep into some complex Constitutional issues (amendment V, IX and XIV) but suffice to say plaintiffs Williams and Conoco complain that the state law is a "government taking" because it denies them the right as the legitimate property owners to say what happens on their property with respect to firearms.

Here's where you come in. Just based on what I've told you, where do you come down on the issue of whether or not this is a good law?

TIA

[sooneron]

Who is going to enforce this law?

[NormanPride]

The $5 in my pocket from Mr. Williams says this law should go. DOWN WITH THE LAW!

[sooneron]

Nevermind my original post I read the issue incorrectly.
It seems unconsitutional to me.

[sooneron]

I forgot to ask, what kind of neighborhhoods are these places in?

[NormanPride]

Seriously, I'd always looked at thngs like this as... you can keep a gun as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. And this would most definitely be infringing on another's rights. I would think it sets a bad precedent.

[handcrafted]

Um, a person's vehicle is their private property. The cops can't search somebody's car without probable cause. An employee does not have to let their employer search their car, so I'm not seeing how on earth Williams/Conoco could enforce such a policy anyway. Seems idiotic to me.

I mean, sure, they could have as a company policy that your personal vehicle is subject to search at any time, and if you refuse, you can be fired. However, if they did have such a policy, I certainly would not work their, and neither would most other people.

[mdklatt]

This is an interesting question. Consider a situation where you invite a friend over, and you ask him not to bring his gun because you have small children or whatever. If his right to bear arms is absolute, than you couldn't make that request, right? And what about all the places where firearms are currently banned, like churches, banks (?), police stations, etc?

[Osce0la]

Who's going to know the gun is in the car to begin with? Besides, if it is locked in the car, I'd rather it be there than on them...

[proud gonzo]

edit: nevermind

[mdklatt]

Um, a person's vehicle is their private property. The cops can't search somebody's car without probable cause. An employee does not have to let their employer search their car, so I'm not seeing how on earth Williams/Conoco could enforce such a policy anyway. Seems idiotic to me.


Excellent point. I couldn't think of a legal distinction between Homey's scenario and mine, but there certainly is one.

[Okla-homey]

Who is going to enforce this law?

Right now, the law is on ice pending a ruling from the OK Supremes.

Just hypothetically speaking, if upheld, the law says that companies would not be able to have a say if their employees had a gun locked in their trunk out in the company parking lot. It would appear that actions taken by the employer to prevent such storage of a gun would prolly be a deemed a misdemeanor.

If struck down, the companies could revert to the way they've always done things and simply enforce their company policy which forbids employees and others coming on to their property to have a gun in the vehicle. BTW, this includes guys who plan to go hunting after work and have their deer rifle on board too...not just pistolas carried for self-defense.

It also doesn't matter if the employee is licensed concealed carry holder. The only thing that matters is if these folks would otherwise be able to legally possess a gun and have it locked in their car. (i.e. not a convicted felon.)

[handcrafted]

EDIT: our posts crossed in the night. :)

[Okla-homey]

I mean, sure, they could have as a company policy that your personal vehicle is subject to search at any time, and if you refuse, you can be fired. However, if they did have such a policy, I certainly would not work their, and neither would most other people.

Apparently both these outfits have just such a corporate policy.

[NormanPride]

See, I still say it sets a bad precedent. I'd hate to see this idea carried over to private residences... I don't want people parking in my driveway with an arsenal in their trunk.

[Okla-homey]

I forgot to ask, what kind of neighborhhoods are these places in?

typical industrial/commercial areas in the Tulsa metro

[mdklatt]

See, I still say it sets a bad precedent. I'd hate to see this idea carried over to private residences... I don't want people parking in my driveway with an arsenal in their trunk.

Why not, specifically?

[Okla-homey]

See, I still say it sets a bad precedent. I'd hate to see this idea carried over to private residences... I don't want people parking in my driveway with an arsenal in their trunk.

You have succinctly and accurately applied the issue to your circumstances. :)

It already affects private property...including your home. Right now, in Oklahoma you can tell people absolutely no guns anywhere on my property. If the law is upheld, you won't be able to stop them having guns in their cars in your driveway. Its that simple actually.

If you run a business, right now you can have a "no guns" policy which extends to your parking lot. If this law is upheld, you can't stop them from having a gun if they leave it locked in their car in your parking lot.

[1stTimeCaller]

When the SC makes a ruling it is usually very limited in scope. Most of the time they rule so that their ruling doesn't open a can of worms like NormanPride is thinking could happen.

[NormanPride]

Why not, specifically?

Er, it makes me nervous? I don't like guns? Morally opposed to violence in general? Don't want kids getting in there? Less opportunity to resort to gun use?

[Okla-homey]

This is an interesting question. Consider a situation where you invite a friend over, and you ask him not to bring his gun because you have small children or whatever. If his right to bear arms is absolute, than you couldn't make that request, right? And what about all the places where firearms are currently banned, like churches, banks (?), police stations, etc?

The areas where guns are already banned by statute are unaffected. This only applies to private property owners (including business).

[NormanPride]

You have succinctly and accurately applied the issue to your circumstances. :)

It already affects private property...including your home. Right now, in Oklahoma you can tell people absolutely no guns anywhere on my property. If the law is upheld, you won't be able to stop them having guns in their cars in your driveway. Its that simple actually.

If you run a business, right now you can have a "no guns" policy which extends to your parking lot. If this law is upheld, you can't stop them from having a gun if they leave it locked in their car in your parking lot.

See, that succs. Why does someone's beat-up old Chevy POS trump my house? I should load my car with guns, then just park in a senator's parking lot. :mad:

[1stTimeCaller]

See, that succs. Why does someone's beat-up old Chevy POS trump my house? I should load my car with guns, then just park in a senator's parking lot. :mad:

Two situations:


NP: Do you have a gun in your car?
NP's friend: yep
NP: I'd like you to leave or park in the street
NPF: No way man, I have rights
NP: on the phone, " Hello police, I can't get a guy to leave my property. I've asked him but he refuses. I'd like him arrested for trespassing.

Boss: Do you have a gun in your car?
Worker with gun in car: Nope
Boss: good if you did you'd be fired, nice job on the Peterman account.

[NormanPride]

See, but that's just another hassle I don't want to deal with. In all likelihood it will never happen to me, but I'm sure it will happen to someone. Preventing the posession of firearms on private property is just less of an opportunity for bad things to happen.

[Okla-homey]

See, that succs. Why does someone's beat-up old Chevy POS trump my house? I should load my car with guns, then just park in a senator's parking lot. :mad:

Its pretty emotionally-charged on both sides. Heck, I'm an admitted gun nut, but private property rights are also near and dear to my heart. Thus, I'm not sure where I stand on this personally. Practically speaking however, tend to think the OK Supremes are going to decide in favor of private property rights mainly because I doubt the state is going to be able to show a compelling government purpose advanced by the new law which it thinks trumps your right to control what happens on your property.

[JohnnyMack]

I'll just wait and see what :dean: says and prolly agree with him.

[Pricetag]

Why not, specifically?
Because people don't keep guns in their cars to leave them locked up there. They keep them so that they can use them, if necessary. The problem is the difference between people's versions of necessary. A property owner, whether public or private, should not be subjected to the whims of others in this manner, IMO.

[NormanPride]

Its pretty emotionally-charged on both sides. Heck, I'm an admitted gun nut, but private property rights are also near and dear to my heart. Thus, I'm not sure where I stand on this personally. Practically speaking however, tend to think the OK Supremes are going to decide in favor of private property rights mainly because I doubt the state is going to be able to show a compelling government purpose advanced by the new law which it thinks trumps your right to control what happens on your property.

Exactly. Other than "I like to have my guns with me at all times" what purpose does this serve?

[OKC Sooner]

WWDD

[Hamhock]

This is a tough one. I tend to think that my ability to control what goes on on my property wins out.

Ultimately, those employees have a choice. If they don't like the rule, go to work somewhere else.

I have a related question: Those of you who carry: Do you follow the rules as to where you can/can't carry. I don't carry on my person that often, but I always felt that if you think you don't want me to have a gun and a situation arises that caused you to learn that I've got a gun, you'll end up being very happy I had the gun.

[sooneron]

This thing kind of reeks of the gun toters wanting to make themselves to be the infringed upon or downtrodden. "poor us, the minorities have nothing on the white gun owner, blah blah blah"

Face it , at work you give up a LOT of constitution rights- Number one being freedom of speech. Guess what, I'm the boss and you CANNOT say whatever you want. You wanna work here, follow my guidelines. Tough ****, my house, my rules.

[sooneron]

http://www.geocities.com/officespacemovie/Pictures/peteratmeeting.jpg
We find that it's always better to fire people on a Friday. Studies have statistically shown that there's less chance of an incident if you do it at the end of the week."

[skycat]

I voted on behalf of the property owners because in most cases I think a property owner should be able to control what goes on on that property, but I'm not so sure I'm right.

Most of you are focusing on firearms for personal protection. But what about somebody who plans to go quail hunting right after the night shift? Is his 12 guage with bird-shot that he has locked in the trunk of his car that big a deal? Should a company really be able to fire that guy? I'm not so sure.

But this is an issue on which somebody could probably sway me either way.

[Hamhock]

Logistically, how do they find out about my 12 gauge locked in the back of my car. Random checks?

[Okla-homey]

I voted on behalf of the property owners because in most cases I think a property owner should be able to control what goes on on that property, but I'm not so sure I'm right.

Most of you are focusing on firearms for personal protection. But what about somebody who plans to go quail hunting right after the night shift? Is his 12 guage with bird-shot that he has locked in the trunk of his car that big a deal? Should a company really be able to fire that guy? I'm not so sure.

But this is an issue on which somebody could probably sway me either way.

You have correctly noted some important sub-issues.

[Okla-homey]

Logistically, how do they find out about my 12 gauge locked in the back of my car. Random checks?

Here's one way: Your co-worker who hates you overhears you talking about your planned hunting trip and rats you out to the company fuzz.

[Hamhock]

Shut up, Kraut.


;)

[IB4OU2]

BTW, this includes guys who plan to go hunting after work and have their deer rifle on board too...not just pistolas carried for self-defense.

I've done this many times......I consider my locked vehicle my personal property. I'm for the law obviously.

[jeremy885]

I voted for the rights of the property owner, but I also feel that the whole concealed weapons thing was a bad idea and should be repealed.

[Hamhock]

I voted for the rights of the property owner, but I also feel that the whole concealed weapons thing was a bad idea and should be repealed.


Why?

[GottaHavePride]

Exactly. Other than "I like to have my guns with me at all times" what purpose does this serve?

Say you have a friend that like to go skeet shooting. Perfetly responsible person that just happens to shoot recreationally. So now say that they stop at you house and have their skeet gun in the trunk from earlier in the day. Is that a problem?

It seems to me this situation doesn't need to be an issue. If you trust the person enough to let them on your private property, it shouldn't bother you if they have a gun in their car. If a gun in their car makes you nervous, why did you let them on your property in the first place?

Slightly different story for a business, though. But the same situation applies. What if the employee (or customer) is a perfectly reasonable person, but maybe has a competitive shooting match later in the day (or is going hunting, drives through unsafe areas, etc.) Why should they not be allowed to have their gun locked in their car?

I would say that any situation that might arise where a gun might be retrieved from a car and used in a violent manner is a situation that should have been controlled by other means before it progressed that far anyway.

[Jerk]

I'd say, I dunno, because, I support both the right to own guns and the right to own private property.

I think a better law would be something like this: If a property owner, specifically commerical property, denies permit holders permission to carry, then they are liable if the permit holder is attacked and cannot defend him/herself on the property.

So, some customer ("dude") goes to 7-11 late at night (That's 'QT' for you Tulsa folks) to buy something, but he cannot bring his gun on the premises. While the dude is shopping, the place gets robbed and the dude gets hurt. Now he can sue 7-11.

[BajaOklahoma]

Most of you are focusing on firearms for personal protection. But what about somebody who plans to go quail hunting right after the night shift? Is his 12 guage with bird-shot that he has locked in the trunk of his car that big a deal? Should a company really be able to fire that guy? I'm not so sure.

But this is an issue on which somebody could probably sway me either way.


A couple of years ago, there was an honor student who got caught with his hunting rifle in his truck, on school property. He "forgot" it was there. Zero tolerance, big flap over it down here. As a student or school employee, if I park on school property, they have the right to search your vehicle. To get the parking pass, you give them this right.

Not that I do anything bad, but I park on the street.

[MojoRisen]

A property owner should always have the right to make certain rules- If I say no drinking in my house and you say it is legal to drink and go Screw yourself- what rights do I have to say you have to leave if you were drinking in my house?

Now for a gun- I am assuming un- loaded and the clip is seperate- if it is loaded and your car was broke into- man you know.

But if you are concealing a weapon legally- and I don't have a problem with it I should be able to say cool-

If they are saying- it is not against the law to keep a legally concealed weapon in your car and the property owner can not Deny you the right to do that-

UM- I would say that the rules of the house have to apply- but at what penalty- none but trespass.

[Sooner_Bob]

This is a tough one. I fully expect to say what flies and what doesn't on my property, but completely understand someone wanting the right to have whatever they choose in their own vehicle.

I may have to actually think about this for a while.

Are these people worried about disgruntled employees blasting their supervisor or something?

[jeremy885]

Why?

What's good about someone carrying a dangerous weapon in public legally?

[Okla-homey]

This is a tough one. I fully expect to say what flies and what doesn't on my property, but completely understand someone wanting the right to have whatever they choose in their own vehicle.

I may have to actually think about this for a while.

Are these people worried about disgruntled employees blasting their supervisor or something?

Perhaps. In the case, the plaintiffs complain their employees hang out in the parking lots at lunchtime and for a bit after work (prolly drinking) and they are worried about arguments turning into shoot-outs at the "Conoco" Corral.

That said, that's similar to the beef about legalizing concealed carry permits and to date, with 48 states now with CCP's, no shoot-outs have occured involving PO'ed licensed concealed carriers. IOW, at least as applied to the CCP issue, its a boogie-man that has not yet materialized.

[slickdawg]

WWDD?

[Okla-homey]

What's good about someone carrying a dangerous weapon in public legally?

self-defense. I live in Tulsa. We have some bad people here who would like to do felonious things to me at gunpoint. I want to be able to shoot them in the head if absolutely necessary to ensure the survival of myself and the spousal unit.

[Jerk]

What's good about someone carrying a dangerous weapon in public legally?

The good part is that they are concealed, so people like you can mind your own business and not worry about what other people chose to do to protect themselves and their families.

[TUSooner]

From a constitutional law point of view, I'm stumped. From a policy point of view, I go with the property owners, although I like an expansive view of the right to bear arms. If you must have your gun in the car, just don't park in the company parking lot. From a practical point of view, I wonder how many places besides Conoco are really going to make a big deal about it. At the same time, I wonder why there was such a need to preempt the property owner's discretion by enacting the law in the first place.

[Jerk]

At the same time, I wonder why there was such a need to preempt the property owner's discretion by enacting the law in the first place.

It got going when a s/e Oklahoma lumber mill did a search of their employees' vehicles. If you search cars at random in s/e Oklahoma, you are surely going to find a cache of goodies, which is exactly what happened, and several employees got fired. Some of them had worked for that company for many many years. Well, to make a long story short, the NRA got involved, yada yada, law passed, yadda, and federal court struck it down.

[Octavian]

The good part is that they are concealed, so people like you can mind your own business and not worry about what other people chose to do....

can we still choose to mind our own business when the legal bullets start flying by us?

[AlbqSooner]

The problem with this law is that it intrudes into the right of the property owner to say how and by whom his property may be used. The potential for extremely bad precedent flowing from this situation led me to vote that the real property owners maintain the right to control their property as they see fit, absent some compelling state interest. If this stands, the next legislative intrusion into the real property owner's decisions on the use of his property will be that much more difficult to defend against.

Additionally, a common misunderstanding among people is evident from some of the posts. The U.S. Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT. It does not directly limit individual actions. When one citizen wants to exercise his First Amendment rights in my home or place of business, the GOVERNMENT may not prevent him from doing so except in limited circumstances. I, however, can tell him to STFU or leave. This law impinges on my right to do that and hence, should not be allowed to stand IMHO.

[TUSooner]

It got going when a s/e Oklahoma lumber mill did a search of their employees' vehicles. If you search cars at random in s/e Oklahoma, you are surely going to find a cache of goodies, which is exactly what happened, and several employees got fired. Some of them had worked for that company for many many years. Well, to make a long story short, the NRA got involved, yada yada, law passed, yadda, and federal court struck it down.
Ah, so.
Thank you.

Did the National Methamphetamine Association lobby for anything? NORML?

[Jerk]

can we still choose to mind our own business when the legal bullets start flying by us?

Many people said that Oklahoma would be like the Wild West if concealed carry passed.

It became law in 1996 and I know of no situation whereby innocents were having to dodge 'legal bullets' since that time. But since you ask a hypothetical, I'd say....DUCK!

[Octavian]

Many people said that Oklahoma would be like the Wild West if concealed carry passed.

It became law in 1996 and I know of no situation were innocents were having to dodge 'legal bullets' since that time. But since you ask a hypothetical, I'd say....DUCK!

see thats kinda funny to me...Oklahoma didn't seem to have a big problem in the first place. Many people, for one reason or another, perceived themselves to be under constant threat and/or danger but weren't then and are still not. It's not like it's the Bronx or East LA...

How many times has your house been broke into that you had to defend your family? I lived there for twenty years and think its one of the safest and nicest places to live on Earth.

I'm not anti-gun (for the same reason I'm not anti-drug) because it's a post-modern market issue and attempts to ban the goods result in a black market backlash worse than the original problem would've been.

I just dont think everyone who professes they have a right to defend themselves have that much to worry about in the first place. They just seem sorta overly scared. If, in reality, they use it as an excuse to keep legal a fun vice then they've tapped into a good argument. The doping hippies could learn something...

[OUHOMER]

Well, heres where I stand. If your parking lot is open to the general public, I say u have the right to carry and leave your gun in the car. If your parking lot is in a compound, fenced in and away from the public, you follow the rules set forth.

If you dont want a gun carried into your home or biz i have no problem with that.

[jeremy885]

can we still choose to mind our own business when the legal bullets start flying by us?

exactly. Damn, I'm agreeing with Octavian on something. I guess there's a first time for everything.

[1stTimeCaller]

see thats kinda funny to me...Oklahoma didn't seem to have a big problem in the first place. Many people, for one reason or another, perceived themselves to be under constant threat and/or danger but weren't then and are still not. It's not like it's the Bronx or East LA...

How many times has your house been broke into that you had to defend your family? I lived there for twenty years and think its one of the safest and nicest places to live on Earth.

I'm not anti-gun (for the same reason I'm not anti-drug) because it's a post-modern market issue and attempts to ban the goods result in a black market backlash worse than the original problem would've been.

I just dont think everyone who professes they have a right to defend themselves have that much to worry about in the first place. They just seem sorta overly scared. If, in reality, they use it as an excuse to keep legal a fun vice then they've tapped into a good argument. The doping hippies could learn something...

this Professor at Florida State doesn't seem to agree with you. According to his research guns are used over 2 million times each year in America to prevent attacks by criminals.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html


According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

[Hamhock]

exactly. Damn, I'm agreeing with Octavian on something. I guess there's a first time for everything.


As soon as the two of you get the guys to stop carrying the guns illegally, I'll stop carrying mine legally. By the way, what is the ratio of legal bullets to illegal bullets flying?

[Hamhock]

Good arguments, but I still think the property rights choice wins. You are telling me what I can and can't do with my private property. If you don't like my rules, you don't have to come on my property. It's like this:

We're not saying you can't own a gun.
We're not saying you can't carry a gun.
We're saying you can't carry a gun in town.

[Okla-homey]

Okay, almost 2-1 in favor of property rights from my unscientific pole. They may throw me out of the NRA for this, but I'm convinced.

Thanks y'all. You great people have helped me decide on my law review article. I think I'll take the non-traditional approach and even try to do some interviews of the principal plaintiffs since they are all local.

I'm thinking of tightening up my enquiry and considering the conflict from the perspective of the vehicle owners's property right to have what he or she wants in his/her car vs. the landowner's right to say what is allowed on his property.

You know, is there some kind of "halo-effect" over real property ("penumbra" in legalese) that trumps a person's right to have an otherwise legal item in his car when he's legally entitled to be on that property? This should be fun. Thanks again.

[Octavian]

exactly. Damn, I'm agreeing with Octavian on something. I guess there's a first time for everything.

you're slippin ;)


this Professor at Florida State...

pfft...Florida St. :rolleyes: :D