Okay, seriously. I need your help. [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

Okla-homey

8/26/2006, 12:41 PM

It's easy, and I'm gonna reference this unscientific poll in my article.

I need you people -- Oklahoma residents only please, to weigh in on this. I need lots of people to vote so please don't blow me off here.

In Oklahoma, we have a statute on the books which states:

No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle. Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1289.7a (2004).

What that means is you as a property owner can't deny people who are otherwise legally entitled to possess a gun from storing it locked in their trunk in the parking lot at work, or for that matter, in your driveway at your house.

If you do, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (highest court in the state for such matters) has ruled you are in violation of an Oklahoma criminal statute and may be liable for misdemeanor sanctions/punishment.

It's sort of a clash of your 2d Amendment gun owning rights and your 5th amendment right to due process when the gubmint does something that affects your rights as a property owner. In this case, your right to say "absolutely no guns on my property!" is stripped by this statute.

If you are an Oklahoma resident, please vote.

mrowl

8/26/2006, 12:48 PM

this is different in Texas though, right? I remember when working corporate they had a rule that said you can't store your firearm in the car at work....

proud gonzo

8/26/2006, 12:54 PM

am I an "oklahoma resident" to you? I live here but i vote (well, i'm registered to vote) in Kansas...

Okla-homey

8/26/2006, 12:59 PM

am I an "oklahoma resident" to you? I live here but i vote (well, i'm registered to vote) in Kansas...

I'd rather we try to keep it pure because I want to be able to claim "in an unscientific, informal poll of Oklahomans...most thought the law was cool (or dumb)" -- however it comes out.

Thanks though.

Okla-homey

8/26/2006, 01:00 PM

this is different in Texas though, right? I remember when working corporate they had a rule that said you can't store your firearm in the car at work....

I haven't reseached Texas statutes but I believe Kentucky is the only other state that has a similar law as of this moment. As I type this, Georgia is trying to pass a similar law based on what OUr guys have done here.

This whole thing got kicked-off over those guys at the Valliant OK Weyerhaeuser plant who got fired in 2002 b/c the dope dogs in the parking lot alerted on cars with firearms in them -- in violation of company policy in the employment manual which effectively stated zero-tolerance for guns locked in cars in the parking lot.

proud gonzo

8/26/2006, 01:01 PM

I'd rather we try to keep it pure because I want to be able to claim "in an unscientific, informal poll of Oklahomans...most thought the law was cool (or dumb)" -- however it comes out.

Thanks though.

just thought i'd check ;)

Boarder

8/26/2006, 01:04 PM

I'm going to vote "I LIke The Law".

But, there's sort of a problem with it.
If the property owner make the rule, they're violating the law. Or do they have to enforce the rule? And, what can they do to enforce it anyway? It's just a rule. What's the punishment for it?
If the gun owner violated the property owner's rule, there's really no punishment at all. So, in this law's case, the only person it's going against is the property owner.

So, although I think the law's fine that you can keep a gun locked in your car whenever you want, I think it's worded kind of mean to where the property owner is the only one who can be punished.

Does this apply to state property? Federal?

Boarder

8/26/2006, 01:09 PM

Or, did you just want a vote and no discussion? :D

Okla-homey

8/26/2006, 01:10 PM

I'm going to vote "I LIke The Law".

Does this apply to state property? Federal?

It was specifically drafted to prevent companies from firing people who had guns locked in their cars at work in violation of company policy.

It only applies to private property. Not municipal, county, state or federal government property.

The thing is, the way its worded, it applies to any private property owner. Even you.

Okla-homey

8/26/2006, 01:11 PM

Or, did you just want a vote and no discussion? :D

No, discussion is fine. It might help me discover different angles.

Octavian

8/26/2006, 01:19 PM

I can see where the law should apply for landlords.

But companies, employers, and private citizens should be able to restrict whatever the hell they want from being on their own private property.

Boarder

8/26/2006, 01:28 PM

I can see where it could be taken as a "yew cain't tell me what can be dun on my prop'r'tee!" law.

OUHOMER

8/26/2006, 01:42 PM

I have not voted yet, I am still thinking about it. I know I have seen this same law discussed before here. The problem anymore is you have to think outside the box. If the world was full of sound, rational people, like those here at S.O.:D I would think no problem. I know if I was going hunting after work, I don’t want to lose my job by having a gun locked in the car. Yet I know a few people that the law has not caught up with yet, that would scare me to death thinking they had a gun outside in their car. Of course they would have it there no matter what the law said.:( But than again if everybody had a gun out in the car it would even the playing field.

I think who ever has the best running shoes wins..

I just don’t know yet.

OUHOMER

8/26/2006, 01:45 PM

Ok, since a criminal will have a gun out there anyway the law would not matter. So for the honest folks who might carry a gun. I decided I like the law.

OUAndy1807

8/26/2006, 03:48 PM

I can see where the law should apply for landlords.

But companies, employers, and private citizens should be able to restrict whatever the hell they want from being on their own private property.
So should it be illegal for a landlord to say "no pets"? I don't guess I see the difference.

I see this as laws overstepping their bounds. I don't like it, and really I don't see why it's even a problem for a corporation to have a no firearms rule as a condition of employment.

OUAndy1807

8/26/2006, 03:55 PM

also, I don't see this as a 2nd amendment case, because we're not talking about limiting people's right to own or use the weapon, we're talking about me telling someone that they cannot bring that weapon onto my private property.

SicEmBaylor

8/26/2006, 04:14 PM

Personal property rights>2nd Amendment/RTC laws.

Frozen Sooner

8/26/2006, 08:58 PM

Well, shoot Homey. If'n I were an Oklahoma resident, I'd tell yew whut I thunk. But I ain't!

(But the gub'ment has no business telling me what I can and can't do on my own property short of infliction of actual injury on another.)

(I didn't vote)

Okla-homey

8/26/2006, 09:22 PM

Personal property rights>2nd Amendment/RTC laws.

Not so fast my leetle green and gold amigo. Is it an infringement on personal property or merely a government land use control? It makes a huge diff b/c the bar is much higher on land use controls before the Court deems a taking and even then they only apply "rational basis" analysis.

NormanPride

8/26/2006, 09:39 PM

The alternative isn't automatically "no firearms on private property" it just give people the option. I would agree that landlords should be restricted unless it's posted everywhere, and then that's like a sign saying "Hey! Rob us, because we don't have guns!"

This is tough. I wouldn't want someone with a gun in their car on my property for 90% of the cases, but there are a few where it would actually make me feel safer. Perhaps we could create a law where you have to clearly label where the weapons are? That would at least make people aware of them, and it might even deter criminals.

Tulsa_Fireman

8/27/2006, 10:42 AM

Given the statute specifically states the location in which the firearm will be carried, an easily assumed locked and secure location, within the personal property of the gunowner himself (as in, it's HIS car), I'm not seein' how this flirts with a 5th Amendment violation in regards to property rights. They take it out? You can deny them access to your property. If it's left in the trunk, as specifically stated, you're within the scope of the legislation and my personal interpretation of the applicable constitutional amendments.

I think we're writing off motor vehicles as not falling under the protection of the 5th Amendment, when they easily fall under the protection of the 4th Amendment regarding search and seizure and probable cause. I'm no lawyer, but if it applies in one instance, it by all means should apply in the other. And for a property owner to deny you a constitutionally protected right (the 2nd) by quoting another (the 5th), when that amendment (the 5th) also applies to the gunowner, is an outright, undeniable violation of our friend the 9th Amendment, where certain rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

That's my take on it at least.

olevetonahill

8/27/2006, 12:34 PM

Okla-homey

8/27/2006, 12:59 PM

Ok Im gonna weigh in here
In my opinion this was enacted because a company wanted to fire some people because they didn't want guns locked in the employees cars at their plant ? It seems said workers wanted to go hunting prior to work Or rite after .
I see nothing wrong with the worker having the law on his side . Why should he be fired ? the weapon is locked up out of site .
Now If its your "personal Private " IE your home . sure you can ask whoever comes over to not even have a weapon in their vehicle .Odds are tho that If you are the anti gun type person that would object to someone bringing a weapon locked in their trunk onto your property , A gun owner ain't coming over to visit you anyway . So you don't have to worry
just my 2 cents

You're right Vet. In '02, eleven guys who worked at the Vallaint OK Weyco mill were busted with guns in their vehicles during a parking lot sweep by dogs conducted by a private security firm -- actually looking for drugs. The dogs, some of which were also trained as bomb dogs, alerted on some cars and pick-ups. The guys got fired b/c the company had a "no guns on company property" rule.

The fired guys sued for wrongful discharge (among other things including the fact the OK constitution is pretty clear that non-felons can transport and posses guns) and lost in federal court basically b/c OK is an "at-will" employment state and the guys broke the rules. By all accounts, these guys were model employees otherwise. Some of them had worked at Weyco for over 30 years.

As a result, state Rep Jerry Ellis of (D-Vallaint) sponsored the bill that passed overwhelmingly (unanimous in the Senate and 94-2 in the House) and Brad Henry signed it.

It was made OK law to keep that sort of thing from ever happening again.

Currently, a group of OK companies have sued in federal court to have the law struck down as unconstitutional because they believe it infringes on their property rights. Oklahoma has voluntarily agreed not to enforce the law until the current case is decided. I think its an interesting case and wanted to write about it.

Vaevictis

8/27/2006, 02:07 PM

A big problem I see with this is that it compromises the ability of private firms to secure their facilities. Parking lots are generally located within easy walking distance from the workplace, which means that firearms are now also.

Question: Are military contractors ever permitted to possess or produce sensitive information or goods at their own facilities?

StoopTroup

8/27/2006, 02:18 PM

A big problem I see with this is that it compromises the ability of private firms to secure their facilities. Parking lots are generally located within easy walking distance from the workplace, which means that firearms are now also.

If companies are so worried about it, they should install metal detectors and x-rays as you enter the property. The incident at Lowrance Electronics last year I think...well...it didn't stop that domestic murder from happening in the workplace.

I don't feel the need to keep a firearm in my vehicle.

I don't mind that others feel they do as many of them may make long drives to work and would feel the need to have the protection should they have a problem with their vehicle.

Okla-homey

8/27/2006, 05:19 PM

Question: Are military contractors ever permitted to possess or produce sensitive information or goods at their own facilities?

yes. for example, military aircraft manufacturers have guys on the payroll with clearances that exceed that of many of the guys who fly them.

I'm sure the same is true for shipbuilders, etc.

Frozen Sooner

8/27/2006, 05:21 PM

yes. for example, military aircraft manufacturers have guys on the payroll with clearances that exceed that of many of the guys who fly them.

I'm sure the same is true for shipbuilders, etc.
http://www.norwayautographs.com/actresses/mcgillis_kelly.jpg

She is a civilian, so you do not salute her. ;)

Okla-homey

8/27/2006, 05:23 PM

http://www.norwayautographs.com/actresses/mcgillis_kelly.jpg

She is a civilian, so you do not salute her. ;)

hah, she's wearing a USS Oriskeny patch on that jacket. CV 77 was sunk this year to make a ginormous fish habitat. Kinda like her career after that flick.

Vaevictis

8/27/2006, 07:59 PM

yes. for example, military aircraft manufacturers have guys on the payroll with clearances that exceed that of many of the guys who fly them.

I'm sure the same is true for shipbuilders, etc.

I figured it was so. At the very least, I think they should make an exception for private companies that have need for enhanced security (for example, military contractors for this reason).

Jerk

8/27/2006, 09:26 PM

Wow, the libs are all of the sudden big supporters of private property rights.

Just don't let em find an endangered snail on your ranch or farm.

Okla-homey

8/27/2006, 09:41 PM

Wow, the libs are all of the sudden big supporters of private property rights.

Just don't let em find an endangered snail on your ranch or farm.

excellent point jerk-meister.:texan:

SoonerInKCMO

8/27/2006, 09:58 PM

Didn't we already have this thread several months ago? :confused:

olevetonahill

8/27/2006, 10:54 PM

Didn't we already have this thread several months ago? :confused:
thread topic ? i think so , But if you read the Cols 1st post he said he needed help for a class and posted a pole ;)

Vaevictis

8/27/2006, 11:17 PM

Wow, the libs are all of the sudden big supporters of private property rights.

Heh. And the pubz are all of the sudden big supporters of obviating property rights. Irony abounds from all quarters here ;)

In any case, just be careful what you wish for. Assuming that the courts don't strike the law down, the legal justification may end up holding open the door for moving the law indoors, to your home, and extend the power to things other than guns. :)

(yes, the juxtaposition continues ;) )

critical_phil

8/27/2006, 11:53 PM

i'll hold out on voting until i hear from the Dixie Chicks on the matter...

olevetonahill

8/28/2006, 03:27 AM

i'll hold out on voting until i hear from the Dixie Chicks on the matter...
Best answer
What he win Homey ? :P

Okla-homey

8/28/2006, 06:26 AM

Heh. And the pubz are all of the sudden big supporters of obviating property rights. Irony abounds from all quarters here ;)

In any case, just be careful what you wish for. Assuming that the courts don't strike the law down, the legal justification may end up holding open the door for moving the law indoors, to your home, and extend the power to things other than guns. :)

(yes, the juxtaposition continues ;) )

You may be interested in knowing Kentucky has a similar statute but it goes a little further. It says if folks have "carry" permits from the state, no criminal penalty may be attached to carrying that gun anywhere at anytime in the state -- except certain governmental sites like schools and courthouses.

Hamhock

8/28/2006, 08:01 AM

Okla-homey

8/28/2006, 08:35 AM

I voted dumb law and I am currently concealing a firearm on my person. However, I have the freedom to find another job if the person that owns the property on which I work decides they don't like it. I think I want the law to lean toward protecting my rights to do what I want on my property.

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.

Thats the thing. Lots of gun-folk feel property rights ought to trump 2d amendment rights. Others feel no one in Oklahoma should be able to tell a law-abiding person s/he cannot legally store a gun in accordance with Oklahoma law in his/his vehicle at work. Somedays I feel one way, other days the 'tother. You could say I'm conflicted.

But I do know the way I think the constitutional question will pan out. I ain't saying though cuz I don't want to scew the findings of this very important poll.

IB4OU2

8/28/2006, 09:10 AM

It was specifically drafted to prevent companies from firing people who had guns locked in their cars at work in violation of company policy.

It only applies to private property. Not municipal, county, state or federal government property.

The thing is, the way its worded, it applies to any private property owner. Even you.

There are many times I leave from work and head out to the deer lease for the weekend and my rifle is locked in my vehicle with all my other hunting/camping items and I don't mind if someone on my property has weapons in their vehicle when they are visiting me.

Osce0la

8/28/2006, 10:12 AM

I'm not from Oklahoma, but I have heard of this law.

I'm kinda back and forth on this one. On one hand, it is their property, it is locked securely in their car (trunk or wherever). As long as it is out of reach for children and what not then I don't really have a problem with it - same for work, as long as it is in your car secured I have no problem...Unless you decide to go postal while you are at work, then there is a problem.

On the other hand, it is your yard, they are on your property, therefore you should have a say in what is and isn't allowed to be brought onto your land. This law basically takes away your right to make decisions about your property, which I don't agree with. They are basically telling you that you can't decide what happens on your own property, in your own yard/driveway...

NormanPride

8/28/2006, 10:56 AM

See, I think people should be able to keep the weapons locked up, but I also think the property owner should be notified. I also think storage methods/containers should be standardized with warning labels clearly present. If employers get a say in how the weapons are stored, it should at least help in some sort of compromise.

Okla-homey

8/28/2006, 11:17 AM

I'm not from Oklahoma, but I have heard of this law.

I'm kinda back and forth on this one. On one hand, it is their property, it is locked securely in their car (trunk or wherever). As long as it is out of reach for children and what not then I don't really have a problem with it - same for work, as long as it is in your car secured I have no problem...Unless you decide to go postal while you are at work, then there is a problem.

BTW, August 20, 1986. Twenty years ago last week, Frank Sherrill walked into the Edmond OK post office where he worked and shot 14 people dead. He then blew his brains out.

At the time, it was the worst massacre of innocents in Oklahoma history -- not eclipsed until the 1995 OKC bombing.

That Oklahoma episode introduced the phrase "going postal" into the American lexicon.

Vaevictis

8/28/2006, 11:32 AM

You may be interested in knowing Kentucky has a similar statute but it goes a little further. It says if folks have "carry" permits from the state, no criminal penalty may be attached to carrying that gun anywhere at anytime in the state -- except certain governmental sites like schools and courthouses.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. What's the point of a state-granted carry permit if the state is going to penalize you for doing so?

The part about prohibiting private entities from saying you can or can't carry on their property is a totally different beast.

(Truthfully, I am not one of those anti-gun lefties. I think concealed carry permits are a good idea. I also have always thought it stupid that the state should issue concealed carry permits, but then prohibit you from actually carrying them from all of the places you might need the weapon.

I just think that prohibiting private entities from controlling firearms on their own property is an unwarranted stretch. My general opinion on the matter of the government controlling actual physical land -- even for environmental purposes, ie, the snail case as Jerk mentioned -- should require the government to offer you the option of selling out to them as in the imminent domain case.)

Okla-homey

8/29/2006, 06:36 AM

I just think that prohibiting private entities from controlling firearms on their own property is an unwarranted stretch. My general opinion on the matter of the government controlling actual physical land -- even for environmental purposes, ie, the snail case as Jerk mentioned -- should require the government to offer you the option of selling out to them as in the imminent domain case.)

FWIW, there is this notion in the law in that unless you are substantially denied "investment-backed expectations" by the gubmint land-use restriction, you prolly won't get paid. The leading SCOTUS case is Lucas. That poor guy was a developer who bought a parcel of beach-front property in SC and the state later wouldn't let him build on it because they were concerned it would lead to beach erosion.