Court: Oklahoma gun law doesn’t conflict with federal safety law
March 2, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, workplace violence
A federal appeals court says Oklahoma’s law allowing employees to have guns at work in their locked vehicles isn’t pre-empted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturns a ruling by a district court which barred enforcement of the law.
“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 judges wrote.
Businesses in Oklahoma, including Weyerhauser Corp. and ConocoPhillips, had sought to have the law thrown out.
A ConocoPhillips spokesman told The Oklahoman, “The safety of our employees is a top priority of ConocoPhillips and we are disappointed with [the] decision.”
The law allows nonfelons to lock legal guns in their vehicles while parked at work.
It was in response to Weyerhauser’s reported firing of eight workers who violated company policy by having guns in their vehicles at work.
Tags: federal court, firearms in the workplace, guns at work
Loading ...
March 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
If the tought for safety goes out to the workers then part of that safety is the ability of the workers to protect themselves. Think about it , if someone was going to commit a crime with a firearm, don’t you think they would think twice before commiting the crime knowing other people were armed or had the access to firearms. Look at the overall stats, how many law abiding citizens are the ones committing crimes as compared to illegal possession or the individual being illegal. Are the people trying to back the no firearms law people who have never shot a firearm or are a hunter?
March 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
If we can’t have guns in our cars how are we supposed to shoot the terrorists?
March 10th, 2009 at 9:23 am
It doesn’t matter how many people have a firearm locked in their vehicles (legal or illegal). All it takes is one person to have some kind of mental breakdown, and many injuries or even death are going to be the result. If that were to happen, God forbid, can the families of the injured sue the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for allowing this to happen? They should be able to because they are the ones who are permitting this, not the employer.
March 11th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Locks keep honest people honest. Personal Protective Orders are only respected by those individuals who respect the law, and any gun law will be ignored by some one with “some kind of mental break down” or some one who intends to do harm. People who commit crimes are criminals most of who break the law when they acquire a fire arm.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:51 am
The argument against the legal possession of a firearm in your vehicle assumes that someone is going to mis-use it to harm someone. Many more people are killed or injured every year by cars than by guns. Someone could mis-use a car to harm someone … logically, we should ban cars in those parking lots as well.
Then there’s the journalist who threw a shoe at the president … so now, shoes could be considered weapons … should we allow shoes in the workplace?
March 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Tony, grow up. Ban cars. Your acting like a child. I hope you don’t own a firearm with childish thoughts like that. Those companies who don’t want firearms in their parking lots or on company property at all, should have the right to ban them. And fire anyone who goes against company policy. Like Bill mentioned “IF” anything were to happen, it’s the company who be under all kinds of lawsuits not the 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals. It’s the companies land and they pay taxes as well. Would you want anyone with a firearms on your property whenever they want to be there, without knowing what they’re up to? Come on, it’s not about the right to firearms. It’s about the rights and the respect the company should have.
March 16th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I filed a disagreement with the ASSE for supporting the move to have a safety standard prohibiting guns from the workplace. I am a degreed safety engineer with 20+ yrs EHSS experience and have a master’s degree. From a risk-based perspective (the only one that matters) the ASSE and the supporters’ arguments were asinine. The ASSE referred to the risk of a bullet in an explosive atmosphere! For goodness sakes! This is like what, 0.0001 of 1% of workplaces? Gimme a break! In most cases, crime will be deterred by the expectations that most people are armed. This is documented and long-settled fact. That being settled, I agree with Ed. Company property is the domain of the employer. The employer should ahve the right to decide what is permissible in the employer’s premises: guns in cars, video-recording, tape-recording, tennis shoes, flip-flops, shorts, etc.