Oklahoma law rearms workers.

[Ranb]

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/11/wguns11.xml


News story about a law, which will keep employers from banning personally, owned guns in the workplace. I know everyone has their own opinion on guns at work, and gun control in general, but this post is not exactly about gun control.

From the above link, "Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says."

RCS is a New York based company. One of the nicer things about the USA is that there are 50 states to live in. If you are not content with the laws in one state, then instead of pissing into the wind (Gun-control freak land CA for example), then you can go to a place with fewer restrictions on how a person can live their life.

Paul Viollis is not content to tell other New Yorkers how to live, he wants his own brand of morality spread to the rural Midwest also. He claims there are 17 gun deaths a week in the workplace in the USA. While I do not doubt this statistic, he could have been specific to Oklahoma. He is also prone to hyperbole as quoted in other links on the net. If Oklahoma had a serious workplace gun violence problem, then I am willing to bet he would have had a shocking statistic to include with the story.

I wish I lived in Idaho again.

Ranb

[Zep]

Hey, let's go to the obvious extension: Why not let your kids take guns to school? They should be taught young about their constitutional rights, shouldn't they?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zep
Hey, let's go to the obvious extension: Why not let your kids take guns to school? They should be taught young about their constitutional rights, shouldn't they?

Because that would be stupid.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Because that would be stupid. Please go on...finish that train of thought...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zep
Please go on...finish that train of thought...

What's there to finish? Kids are denied certain things until they are of legal age.

[Ranb]

Hey Zep, maybe you could try to not be a jerk. Please wait on trying to de-rail the thread until after it grows to one page in length.

From my above post,

"Paul Viollis is not content to tell other New Yorkers how to live, he wants his own brand of morality spread to the rural Midwest also."

I repeat, this thread is not really about gun control. Put "adult videos, and HIV" in the place of "guns and violence" and maybe you will see my point.

I was trying to make this about jerks busting in with their stupid ideas where they are not welcome, kind of like yours. :)

Ranb

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ranb
Hey Zep, maybe you could try to not be a jerk. Please wait on trying to de-rail the thread until after it grows to one page in length.

From my above post,

"Paul Viollis is not content to tell other New Yorkers how to live, he wants his own brand of morality spread to the rural Midwest also."

I repeat, this thread is not really about gun control. Put "adult videos, and HIV" in the place of "guns and violence" and maybe you will see my point.

I was trying to make this about jerks busting in with their stupid ideas where they are not welcome, kind of like yours. :)

Ranb I don't see a sign that says "No Zep Opinions Allowed".

[Zep]

Originally posted by Grammatron
What's there to finish? Kids are denied certain things until they are of legal age. Why? They have the constitutional right to be armed, don't they? Or is it that it wouldn't be safe for kids to take guns to school?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zep
Why? They have the constitutional right to be armed, don't they? Or is it that it wouldn't be safe for kids to take guns to school?

No they do not.

[a_unique_person]

Kids get killed at school.

[Iconoclast]

Guns at work? I know the USA has a huge gun culture, but I find this insane. I don't know what else to say.

[Cleon]

I hope the Oklahoma post offices are the very first to institute this...

[tedly]

Excuse me, I seem to recall a Molly Ivins column where she talked about legislators supporting the right of students to leave their rifles in the parking lot, so they could get in some hunting on the way to and from school. So maybe students do have a constitutional right, at least in Texas.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by tedly
Excuse me, I seem to recall a Molly Ivins column where she talked about legislators supporting the right of students to leave their rifles in the parking lot, so they could get in some hunting on the way to and from school. So maybe students do have a constitutional right, at least in Texas.
I don't keep up with the gun laws here too much, but I think you only need a license to carry concealed weapons. Rifles don't count because they're long guns; only handguns apply. But I don't know how that gets around the federal requirements disallowing guns within so many feet of schools. I don't think there is actually a minimum age for owning legal weapons in Texas, though.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Kids get killed at school.

Kids get killed pretty much anywhere, don't they?

You pop up these "facts" seemingly at random with no context. Is this your ADD?

[shecky]

Will it apply to postal workers?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Grammatron
No they do not. This answers which of my questions, please?

[Beanbag]

The point to make is that large portions of Oklahoma are probably a lot like the outback: deserted, uninhabited, and possibly dangerous. It isn't like New York, where you can't spit without hitting somebody, even at 3AM. This is COUNTRY, folks. I've driven through lots of it at odd hours of the night, and except for the occasional car going the other way, all I've seen was pitch black. Common sense tells me that there's a good chance that if I had a breakdown, I'd be on my own for quite some time. Having the capacity to protect myself makes sense. Unlike what others seem to think, Oklahomans and Texans don't strap on a hogleg before they mosey out the door for work. But I'll bet at least one out of three have some sort of firearm in their car, where it's available IF it's needed. Other than that admittedly rare chance of happening, you'll never see guns flashed around carelessly. Personal responsibility, personal safety, and self-reliance tend to be valued a bit more highly, unlike some places where certain issues are consideredsociety's problems to take care of.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Brian]

Nah. Is this saying that someone can bring something I don't want them to bring onto my private property?

[Zep]

Well, Beanbag, they must be mighty unneighbourly in the country parts of Oklahoma and Texas, which (I sincerely hope) is not what I have been led to believe is the case.

By way of comparison, I have lived in what actually IS the outback of Australia, where to have your car break down can easily mean not just loss of personal safety but actual death due to thirst and starvation. We are talking hundreds of thousands of hectares of flat scrubby nuthin' here - flat places somewhat bigger than Texas, I can assure you. Where the nearest town/phone can easily be hundreds of kms away, unlike Texas and Oklahoma.

And it would be rare for people to carry any weapons for self-defence in such places. They would be fairly useless, and a waste of energy to carry about. We much prefer to carry water and fuel and a comprehensive repair kit. And a radio/phone. See, what happens here is if someone gets stranded in the outback and we find them, we help them. Everyone does it - truck-drivers, tourists, police, locals, the postman even. And a gun is no help in such cases.

http://www.adventure-tours-australia.com/simpson-desert/images/desert-miles-of-nothing.jpg

[Globert]

Oklahoma is O.K.


The law passed unanimously in Oklahoma's Senate and by 92 votes to four in the House.


Seems to be a popular idea.:D

-Globe

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Brian
Nah. Is this saying that someone can bring something I don't want them to bring onto my private property?

Looks that way. I would expect a challenge perhaps, or, companies may move out of Oklahoma if they feel strongly enough about it. Which would be kind of cool - can you imagine the sight of those same phonies that passed the law begging companies not to leave? I would relish the sight.

[Zep]

I wonder what would happen to these same legislators if one of them packed a majorly impressive but concealed firearm into the legislative house (i.e. their workplace), pulled it out and banged it down on the table, and then asked if anyone wasn't going to vote his way...

That would all be legal, wouldn't it?

[Tmy]

This is dumb. We have freedom of speech too, but not at work where you can get fired for saying certain things.

Allowing guns in the workplace could lead to big time security risks and liabilties. Weve all worked with some maniacs, or disgruntled employees. Could you imagine them all armed.

Id hate to be a manager. What happens when you fire the wrong guy who is armed and has a short temper?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ranb
News story about a law, which will keep employers from banning personally, owned guns in the workplace. I know everyone has their own opinion on guns at work, and gun control in general, but this post is not exactly about gun control.

If the company owns or properly leases the property, then they have every right to restrict people from carrying firearms in the building if they so choose. It's their property, so it's their rules that apply. The government shouldn't stop them from allowing their employees to be armed, but it shouldn't force them to allow it, either.

Freedom works both ways, y'know.

[Tony]

This law seems like every communist's dream.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Brian
Nah. Is this saying that someone can bring something I don't want them to bring onto my private property?

Drawing a wage doesn't mean that employees become part of that private property.


It used to be the case that the business owner had the same expectations of owning behavior at his business as he did at his home, and the courts recognized that.

Over the years, the trend toward recognizing that employees have rights, even at work, has teetered back and forth...

I have no idea where the 'guns are OK at work' issue is going to land, but 'private property' is pretty weak, particularly if you are letting armed criminals come in and kill your employees on that property.

Yes, there is the going postal stereotype, but there are also the mounting number of cases where corporate insensitivity to employee's rights to stay alive (such as the manager who was fired for struggling with the robber, *after* giving up the money, and as he was being led to the back of the store to be murdered) may possibly be turning voters, courts, and juries against them on this very issue..

[shanek]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I have no idea where the 'guns are OK at work' issue is going to land, but 'private property' is pretty weak, particularly if you are letting armed criminals come in and kill your employees on that property.

Who's doing that?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by crimresearch

I have no idea where the 'guns are OK at work' issue is going to land, but 'private property' is pretty weak, particularly if you are letting armed criminals come in and kill your employees on that property.
..

WHAT!?!? Where are compainies "letting" armed criminals come in? If a company doesnt have adequate security they open themselves up to lawsuits and govt regulations.


If anything this law is bass ackwards. It will REQUIRE businesses to let armed maniacs into work where they can kill employees and/or customers.

Who wants to bet you cant get into the OK State capitol with a gun?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Who wants to bet you cant get into the OK State capitol with a gun?

Or even an ice pick, carving knife, and picture of Saddam Hussein?

(for any Boston Legal fans out thre...)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
WHAT!?!? Where are compainies "letting" armed criminals come in? If a company doesnt have adequate security they open themselves up to lawsuits and govt regulations.


If anything this law is bass ackwards. It will REQUIRE businesses to let armed maniacs into work where they can kill employees and/or customers.

Who wants to bet you cant get into the OK State capitol with a gun?

Actually, the companies who have a written policy that fires any employee who struggles for their life, have made it pretty clear which side of the issue they are on...


Oh wait a minute...were you suggesting that the only danger any employee in fast food, delivery, or convenience stores, is ever going to face is being killed with a pepper ball gun by an untrained cop?
:p

[Tmy]

The polices are installed for the safety of the employees and liability issues.

In high school I worked at a supermarket. We used to chase after shoplifters all the time. THen one day a shoplifter pulled a knife on a pursuing bag boy. AFter that word came down that anyoen who chased after shoplifters like that would be fired. Better to lose a packet of ciggarettes than have someone get seriously hurt.

Sometimes theres an odd situation like that Pizza thread where the guy shot the attacker. But forthe most part its a good policy.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Tmy
The polices are installed for the safety of the employees and liability issues.

In high school I worked at a supermarket. We used to chase after shoplifters all the time. THen one day a shoplifter pulled a knife on a pursuing bag boy. AFter that word came down that anyoen who chased after shoplifters like that would be fired. Better to lose a packet of ciggarettes than have someone get seriously hurt.

Sometimes theres an odd situation like that Pizza thread where the guy shot the attacker. But forthe most part its a good policy.

Actually, I agree with the rationale for having those policies.

But when the largest fast food conglomerate fires a manager who had *already* handed over the money, and was being herded into the back of the store, and broke free....they are sending more of a message than 'employee safety'.
They are saying they would rather have a dead employee than an injured robber or bystander.
Because traditionally, dead employees just don't cost that damn much...a trend that I hope some of these laws and alwsuits may challenge.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
The polices are installed for the safety of the employees and liability issues.

In high school I worked at a supermarket. We used to chase after shoplifters all the time. THen one day a shoplifter pulled a knife on a pursuing bag boy. AFter that word came down that anyoen who chased after shoplifters like that would be fired. Better to lose a packet of ciggarettes than have someone get seriously hurt.

Sometimes theres an odd situation like that Pizza thread where the guy shot the attacker. But forthe most part its a good policy.

I can see that...but no policy should be so strict and enforced so strongly that it punishes someone who has no choice but to fight for his life.

[Tmy]

I dont know the details of that story but Im sure the guy could challange that fireing.

Teh policies are not "dont defend yourself.' They are more like "dont fight" with the robbers. They want you to turn over the cash and let the guy go. Now if your being phyisally attacked, we all have the right to defend ourseleves. Even a company would recoginze that.

[Beanbag]

Originally posted by Tmy
The polices are installed for the safety of the employees and liability issues.

Hogwash. You're assuming the criminals are willing to read and follow the policies. Where I work, the holdup procedure is posted inside the break room. Common sense tells me it should be on the front door, so any would-be criminals would know we're supposed to roll over and play dead.

The police are there to keep accurate records and collect evidence AFTER the fact. It's a rare crime that is committed in front of the police. Police are there to maintain order and provide a means to see that laws are being obeyed. Unless someone is stupid enough to jump you when a police officer is nearby, then you're pretty much on your own.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Beanbag
Hogwash. You're assuming the criminals are willing to read and follow the policies. Where I work, the holdup procedure is posted inside the break room. Common sense tells me it should be on the front door, so any would-be criminals would know we're supposed to roll over and play dead.

The police are there to keep accurate records and collect evidence AFTER the fact. It's a rare crime that is committed in front of the police. Police are there to maintain order and provide a means to see that laws are being obeyed. Unless someone is stupid enough to jump you when a police officer is nearby, then you're pretty much on your own.

Regards;
Beanbag

Your right. The truth is that employers hate the employees and want then dead.:D

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Zep
I wonder what would happen to these same legislators if one of them packed a majorly impressive but concealed firearm into the legislative house (i.e. their workplace), pulled it out and banged it down on the table, and then asked if anyone wasn't going to vote his way...

That would all be legal, wouldn't it?
Here in Chicago, alderman Dorothy Tillman has been known to do just that. And she hasn't been arrested for it. :p

[Zep]

Originally posted by WildCat
Here in Chicago, alderman Dorothy Tillman has been known to do just that. And she hasn't been arrested for it. :p But did anyone vote AGAINST her?

It seems some people haven't yet let go of the 19th century "Judge Roy Bean" mode of law enforcement in the 21st century.

http://www.desertusa.com/mag98/aug/papr/du_roybean.html

[geni]

Originally posted by Grammatron
No they do not.

Really?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People normaly includes everyone. As for being in the context of a militia pretty much anyone above the age of a toddler (say 6 to 7) can handle an assult rifle. Pretty much anyone above the age of 12 can handle an RPG (and american kids get plently to eat so can probably handle then a bit youger). As for well regulated kids may not be that good at giving orders but they can follow them. Why do you think the LRA used them so much?

Ok so they don't make briliant fighters but I don't see must be good fighters anywhere.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Ranb
News story about a law, which will keep employers from banning personally, owned guns in the workplace.
Incorrect. It deals with guns in cars, not the workplace.

RCS is a New York based company.
So screw them? **** the Yankees, eh?

One of the nicer things about the USA is that there are 50 states to live in. If you are not content with the laws in one state, then instead of pissing into the wind (Gun-control freak land CA for example), then you can go to a place with fewer restrictions on how a person can live their life.Right, so no one has any right to complain about anything a state does; after all, how difficult could it be to relocate an entire company? :rolleyes:

Paul Viollis is not content to tell other New Yorkers how to live, he wants his own brand of morality spread to the rural Midwest also.
How Orwellian; it is Oklahoma that is trying to tell him what to do, not the other way around.

I repeat, this thread is not really about gun control. Put "adult videos, and HIV" in the place of "guns and violence" and maybe you will see my point.Let's see:News story about a law, which will keep employers from banning pornography and vials of HIV-tainted blood in the workplace.Nope, don't see your point. In fact, it's even less clear than before. Do you think employers should be forced to allow pornography at the workplace?

kimikoBut I don't know how that gets around the federal requirements disallowing guns within so many feet of schools.I thought that got struck down as being outside the authority of the federal government.

crimresearch
Drawing a wage doesn't mean that employees become part of that private property.And employees doing what their employers tell them doesn't mean they're the employer's property, either.

Over the years, the trend toward recognizing that employees have rights, even at work, has teetered back and forth...The issue is not whether employees have rights, but whether employers do.

[crimresearch]

And employees doing what their employers tell them doesn't mean they're the employer's property, either.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Over the years, the trend toward recognizing that employees have rights, even at work, has teetered back and forth..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue is not whether employees have rights, but whether employers do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The issue includes whether or not employers have a right to fire employees for defending themselves (as in the Long John Silver manager), and by extension, to tell employees that they can't have guns in *their* personal property, i.e. their vehicles, even when not on company property (as in the delivery drivers).

Given the range of possible scenarios, I'll be surprised if the courts draw a line all the way to one side, or the other.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by crimresearch
The issue includes whether or not employers have a right to fire employees for defending themselves (as in the Long John Silver manager), and by extension, to tell employees that they can't have guns in *their* personal property, i.e. their vehicles, even when not on company property (as in the delivery drivers). I don't see how these issues are implicated by this law.

[Beanbag]

Originally posted by Zep
Well, Beanbag, they must be mighty unneighbourly in the country parts of Oklahoma and Texas, which (I sincerely hope) is not what I have been led to believe is the case.

It's really not the people who live there that are the problem. It's the folk passing through who might happen upon you and think that since they're not going to be back here any time soon, they might as well take advantage of the situation. There's an old saying that the wise dog doesn't s!!t too close to the house. Most folks don't cause trouble where they live.

BTW, nice picture. Too green, though. I've got a few from the Big Bend that show what a Texas scrub desert looks like. All you have to do is watch out for the javelinas, the Mexican brown bears, mountain lions, and the illegal aliens moving north across the border. I'd post them, but they're on slides at the moment.

(I'm sure we can play one-upsmanship on rugged settings in our respective locales. There's always the downtown bus depot where even the police preferr to go in groups of four.)

Regards;
Beanbag

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Incorrect. It deals with guns in cars, not the workplace.


So screw them? **** the Yankees, eh?

Right, so no one has any right to complain about anything a state does; after all, how difficult could it be to relocate an entire company? :rolleyes:


How Orwellian; it is Oklahoma that is trying to tell him what to do, not the other way around.

Let's see:Nope, don't see your point. In fact, it's even less clear than before. Do you think employers should be forced to allow pornography at the workplace?

............

Since the man was fired for having a gun in his car at work, it does in fact deal with guns at the workplace.

I did not say he did not have the right to complain. It would be nice to not have someone in NY trying to influence policy in OK.

The OK government is telling OK employers what to do, not people based in NY.

Why would an employer be concerned about porn in a person’s car in the parking lot?

Ranb