Federal judge uses "OSHA" excuse on OK law

[Greybeard]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I picked up on this over at THR. Please pardon if posted here, but I did not see.

Hopefully not another obstacle for Tejas "parking lot" endeavors in '09 ...

Judge Nixes Oklahoma's Guns-in-Locked-Cars Law
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20071010b.html

(CNSNews.com) - A federal judge in Tulsa has blocked an Oklahoma law allowing employees to keep guns in their locked cars on company property.

In a written order issued last Thursday, U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against the law that was passed in 2004.

According to the Tulsa World, Kern said the law (a series of amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act) conflicted with the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act, which is intended to protect employees in the workplace.

Parties to the federal lawsuit included (at various times) Whirlpool, the Williams Cos., and Conoco Phillips, all of which objected to the Oklahoma law on the grounds that it violated their private property rights -- and interfered with corporate policies intended to protect workers.

According to the National Rifle Association, the issue arose in 2002 in Oklahoma, when the Weyerhaeuser company fired eight employees for having guns in their cars on company property.

In response, the Oklahoma Legislature passed a law -- unanimously in the House and by a 92-4 vote in the Senate -- prohibiting "any policy or rule" that barring law-abiding people from "transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle."

Safety vs. self-defense

"The judge made the right decision in this case," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "The safety of American workplaces should take precedence over allowing individuals to rapidly arm themselves with dangerous weapons."

The Brady Center said similar laws should be repealed in other states, "based on Judge Kern's clear findings in this case." (Similar laws have been passed in Alaska, Minnesota, Kentucky and Kansas; 13 other states have rejected such laws.)

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence issued a report in November 2005 arguing against "the NRA's campaign to force businesses to accept guns at work," and that report was cited prominently in the judge's decision last Thursday, the Brady Center said Wednesday in a news release.

The National Rifle Association supported the Oklahoma law, arguing that most gun-related crimes in the workplace are committed by non-employees. It also noted that people bent on violence will not be prevented from opening fire by a company policy against having guns in cars.

The Tulsa World last week quoted the Oklahoma bill's sponsor, Democratic State Rep Jerry Ellis, as saying that Judge Kern's ruling will do nothing to protect workers, but will erode employees' self-defense capabilities.

Ellis said the judge's decision increases the chances that a disgruntled person will be able to kill a lot of people at their workplace before police can respond to a 911 call.

"I guess federal judges can do anything they want. They don't have to worry about the voters," the newspaper quoted Ellis as saying.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think this ruling is a dead duck on appeal. The judge is obviously a frustrated legislator. Most likely appointed by Clinton.

[seamusTX]

To answer the question, this decision has no immediate effect in Texas.

Oklahoma is in the 10th circuit. Texas is in the 5th.

This decision could affect Texas only if it is appealed to the Supreme Court, or if the 5th circuit looks to it as precedent.

Both of these circuits are conservative, and I don't expect this ruling to stand.

- Jim

[stevie_d_64]

Kern, Terence C.
Born 1944 in Clinton, OK

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma
Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 9, 1994, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on June 8, 1994, and received commission on June 9, 1994. Served as chief judge, 1996-2003.

Education:
Oklahoma State University, bull, 1966

University of Oklahoma College of Law, J.D., 1969

Professional Career:
U.S. Army Reserve, 1969-1975
General attorney, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Compliance, Bureau of Deceptive Practices, 1969-1970
Private practice, Ardmore, Oklahoma, 1970-1994

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need we wonder anymore???

[mcub]

I'm surprised the companies made that move, if it holds up, I bet I could then reference it as a reason they are responsible for my injury in my car, while in their parking lot. If they are saying, and the courts are affirming that the car (and contents) are covered by OSHA, then so would be its occupants.

Hum, the failure of my employer to provide me covered parking resulting in steering wheel heating up and blistering my finger.

Something to think on any way.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Kern, Terence C.
Born 1944 in Clinton, OK

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma
Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 9, 1994, to a new seat created by 104 Stat. 5089; Confirmed by the Senate on June 8, 1994, and received commission on June 9, 1994. Served as chief judge, 1996-2003.

What did I tell you.

[casingpoint]

"a series of amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act) conflicted with the federal Occupational Health and Safety Act, which is intended to protect employees in the workplace"

The Federal Health and Safety Act conflicts with the Federal Second Amendment here. Guns in cars in a parking lot do not constitute an immediate threat to worker safety inside a plant. Consequently there is no compelling reason to restrict the Second Amendment rights of plant workers exercising those rights away from their immediate work environment. OSHA regulations could be said to control there only.

[boomerang]

I'm surprised the companies made that move, if it holds up, I bet I could then reference it as a reason they are responsible for my injury in my car, while in their parking lot. If they are saying, and the courts are affirming that the car (and contents) are covered by OSHA, then so would be its occupants.

Oh, that's brilliant. There probably was a fender bender in at least one of those companies' parking lots in the past year. Since the companies argued the parking lot is part of the workplace, they certainly would want any parking lot accidents reported to the appropriate government acencies. The company should also cover any property damage resulting from a workplace accident. If there's an injury in the parking lot, employees should file for workman's compensation. I wonder if there is anything female employees can see or hear from the parking lot that would constitute a hostile work environment.

Et cetera, ad nauseum.

[dihappy]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The judge made the right decision in this case," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "The safety of American workplaces should take precedence over allowing individuals to rapidly arm themselves with dangerous weapons."

OMG! What an idiot!

I would have replied to that idiot judge:

"How about, the safety of American workers should take precedence and they should be allowed to rapidly arm themselves in self defense should the need arise."

It always boggles my mind that antis think it is SAFER to keep people from being able to defend themselves.

Sorta like:

OK, lets take out all of these sheep's teeth so that if a wolf comes, they will be safer.

huhhh?????

[Photoman]

Laws, federal or state, do not prevent workplace violence.