Court Rejects "Forced Entry" Of Guns At Work

What do you call a law that forces employers to accept guns on their property, when doing so makes it impossible to provide a safe workplace under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)?

Ridiculous?

What do you call a law that could force guns onto the private property of a homeowner who doesn't want them?

Outrageous?

In Oklahoma, they call it "unenforceable."

Last Thursday, October 4, Judge Terence Kern of the Federal District Court in Tulsa, Oklahoma, issued a 93-page injunction [pdf document] that rejected the gun lobby's fiercest effort yet to force guns into America's workplaces. Notably, the court's opinion cited the Brady Center report on this critical subject - Forced Entry: The National Rifle Association's Campaign To Force Businesses To Accept Guns At Work - no fewer than five times.

Under the "forced entry" statutes that Judge Kern rejected (Okla. Stat. §§21-1289.7 and 1290.22(B)), someone who kept a gun in their car would have the right to take their weapon almost anywhere there was a parking lot - courthouses, mental health facilities, day care centers, and almost every private business. Even some homeowners in Oklahoma may not have been able to prevent a guest from driving onto their property with a firearm in his or her automobile. (See pp. 61-62 of the opinion [pdf document].)

Does that make sense to you? Should a guest be able to tell you what you can do on the property that you bought and paid for? Somehow it does to the NRA. Yet to most Americans [see table 8.2] with a more traditional understanding of private property, the Oklahoma law was completely irrational. That helps explain why the NRA's attempts to pass similar laws have failed in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas and nine other states over the last two years.

As it happens, however, Judge Kern didn't reject the Oklahoma "forced entry" law because it contradicted a basic understanding of private property. Instead, Judge Kern found it impossible for an Oklahoma employer to simultaneously follow the state's bizarre "forced entry" gun law and fulfill its general duty under OSHA "to protect [ ] employees from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious bodily injury." The court rightly concluded that an employer's general duty "extends to the hazard of gun-related workplace violence" and that such violence "is a 'hazard' that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to employees."

The evidence is clearly on the court's side. And it's just common sense.

Due to the court's decision, working families in Oklahoma can rest easier knowing that now business owners have control over their property again, and that they can punch their time-clocks without worrying about how many of their co-workers have a semi-automatic firearm out in the parking lot because the law said it was OK.

It's not OK, and now they have the right to say so.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[Leifrakur]

And so, gunslingers, please don't pack your heat on MY property!

[Mark0]

Agreed. And all I ask in return is for you to please leave your civil rights parked out on the street when you venture onto my property. Thank you so much for your cooperation.

[mike101]

"Also, I find the Brady Campaign's assurance that they are simply supporting business owners rights ridiculous and borderline hypocritical"

Nothing "borderline" about it, Zen. How many times has the BC told us they are not out to ban guns? Yet here, before our very eyes, they are supporting the "right" of business owners to ban guns in people's cars. The reasons they give for supporting this measure are also a lot of baloney.

This reminds me of what happened when the DC Gun Ban was overturned. The BC said the only reason they were against the decision, was because they didn't agree with the judges reasons for overturning the ban.

The fact that the BC thinks that people are too stupid to see right through this is highly insulting.

I'm sure this is coming next. Just how is an employer going to know who has a gun in their car? The only way is to start searching employees' cars. Would the BC support that, Paul? Of course they would! Funny, because a cop needs a warrant, or probable cause to do so. I'm sure the BC would not wish to require this of an employer, since they want to be our "keepers".

So, how about it BC? Would you support the employer's "right" to search cars? Why not, since we're tossing the Constitution out the window anyway?

[zen21tao]

(Quote)
This reminds me of what happened when the DC Gun Ban was overturned. The BC said the only reason they were against the decision, was because they didn't agree with the judges reasons for overturning the ban.
(End Quote)

I remember this. The Brady Campaign said that they weren't supporting the "gun ban", they were supporting the issue of "State's Rights" because they believe that a State should have the right to legislate gun laws as that State sees fit.

This was a funny claim considering all the federal laws and restrictions the Brady Campaign actively lobby for. These federal laws and restrictions infringe on State's rights by forcing all States to adopt laws they didn't pass and in many cases didn't want.

For example, the Brady Campaign's beloved 94' "Assault Weapons Ban" forced a ban on specific weapons that many State's themselves wouldn't ban. The Brady Campaign "says" it supports "State's Rights" but it also supports the new federal Assault Weapons Ban Carolyn McCarthy wrote and is pushing for in the Senate.

And what about the changes in the Federal Brady law they want (changes in the background search system)? Wouldn't these changes force States to adopt changes they didn't legislate themselves?

Once again, the Brady Campaign shows it only supports an issue (business owners rights, State's rights, etc.) when it coincides with their anti-gun agenda. This is very hypocritical.

[zen21tao]

I actually am a big advocate of a business owner being able to run his business ANY way he wants. I feel this is his rights. This includes a business owners having the right to hire who he wants, restrict service to anyone he wants, and make any rules of conduct (no weapons of employees or patrons) that he wants. However, the fact is, that governmental regulations and restrictions already prevent business owners from running their business as they wish.

While I am a strong supporter of business owners rights, I also draw the line at not allowing firearms IN VEHICLES. Your vehicle is considered an extension of your home. Ig a business owners can say "no gun in a vehicle" what is stop his from saying "baby car seats" or "no religious symbols" in your vehicle. How about a business owner banning cars based on the bumper stickers they have on them. As I see it, an employer or business owners rights actually begin just as soon AFTER you step out of your vehicle.

Also, I find the Brady Campaign's assurance that they are simply supporting business owners rights ridiculous and borderline hypocritical. If this was truly the case, that they really support business owner's rights, they would be publicly calling for a business owner allowing smoking ANYWHERE on his property he wants, the elimination of affirmative action, the elimination ALL governmental restrictions on business owners, not just the anti-gun ones, and support for a number of other business owner issues.

In fact, Paul, what would your stance be if a pro-gun business owner created a rule stating that all his employees ARE REQUIRED to carry a gun at work or that only armed patrons can shop there? Where would you support fall then?

[DMeadows]

"How about a business owner banning cars based on the bumper stickers they have on them."

Happening already:

Lynne Gobbell fired over a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker.
http://www.slate.com/id/2106714

Luis Padilla fired over a bumper sticker supporting the state"s upcoming constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/11700/CWA/family/index.htm

Employers have to be as vigilantly watched as we do the government, to ensure individual rights are not trampled.

[snaggster]

BTW - It's very interesting that you lump me with "anti-gun people". Just a few inches up, under my very own HuffPost screen name, it says: "Start your own business and allow as many guns as you like."

I happen to think employers should be able to tell you not to bring them on their property.

[KRob]

Forbidding employees from carrying weapons on company property is what violates OSHA. It creates a workplace which invites shootings. One could perhaps call it "maintaining an attractive nuisance"?

[kaveman]

As a property owner, should I be able to tell a cop that they are barred from my property as long as they carry a firearm?

[snaggster]

Interesting question. Downright anarchic. Try it out and let us all know how it turns out. Maybe the Supremes will hear your case in a few decades.

[DMeadows]

The issue of transporting firearms or right-to-carry in privately owned or leased space is not as simple as Paul and other gun-control advocates would like to portray it. An employee or guest has rights, too, so the matter requires balance.

Where Paul and other gun-control advocates wish to dismiss with a wave of the hand contemplation of the rights of an individual in someone else's private space, they run afoul of sensibility. Again, we see the danger of the dogma held by Paul and gun-control advocates, and their stiff inflexibility in pursuing their agenda.

According to them, you don't have the right to defend yourself or be prepared for it. Paul's commentary above is just one more example demonstrating that agenda. They try to "talk the talk" in attempting to conceal their true intentions, but their actions show the true walk they are walking.

[molonlabe]

Paul, since we're playing the word-association game, I have a few...

What do you call the infringement on law-abiding citizens 2nd Amendment rights?
-Unconstitutional
What do you call laws which are not followed by criminals and only obeyed by the law abiding?
-Ineffective
What to you call the concentration of time and resources toward policies which have already proved ineffective?
-Futility
What do you call a body of people who blame inanimate objects for crime instead of focusing on the criminals perpetrating the crime?
-Gun Control Advocates
What do you call the entity which enables recidivism and advocates the release of violent offenders into society so they can continue to harm innocent prople?
-Our Judicial system

[molonlabe]

"Forced Entry?" That's pretty good, Paul. I'll even give you that. I can see the sheep running around in circles looking for the sheep dog every time that phrase is uttered!

I guess in Oklahoma, people should just start putting signs on their car stating "please, stalk ME after work, I have no means to defend myself."

Congratulations on another piece of legislation which does nothing to combat violent crime. Just what we need, more "gun free zones" where only criminals will have guns. We see how well they have been working out lately....

Sad.

[Mark0]

"makes it impossible to provide a safe workplace under the Occupational Safety and Health Act "

This is predicated upon the patently false assumption that the mere presense of a firearm presents a danger.

Following that logic Smith and Wesson and Ruger would be the most dangerous places in this country to work. Needless to say, that is not the case.

[Phoronus]

Wait a minute: "and that they can punch their time-clocks without worrying about how many of their co-workers have a semi-automatic firearm out in the parking lot because the law said it was OK."

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read. The people who pay attention to the law aren't the ones they need to worry about. It's the ones who are going to commit a crime anyway. I'd feel much safer, actually, if I knew that my co-workers had the means to defend themselves should someone decide to come in here aiming to do harm.

[Phoronus]

God forbid that people are allowed to defend themselves at work. It is truly better to allow criminals free reign at workplaces.

[snaggster]

We got freedum here in amurika. If someone feels the need to "defend" himself while at work, then he should just find an employer that allows that. This column was about a law that would force an employer to accept that. Employers should be able to make that choice.

[DMeadows]

It's not a unilateral choice that the bossman gets to make alone. There are two stakeholders to this issue, as in all employment issues: employees AND employers.

Employees have as much right to ensure their personal safety is prepared for, as much as the employer has to ensuring the safety of the workplace as a whole.

Believe it or not, those two actually aren't mutually exclusive, as Paul and gun-control advocates try fervently to portray otherwise. For instance, individuals licensed to carry concealed are far more law-abiding and responsible than the slightly-above-minimum-wage "security" personnel that an employer may hire to provide "security" for them and the workplace.

[Phoronus]

We have laws forcing employers to do lots of things. Not allow child labor, have reasonable working hours, pay a minimum wage. Why is allowing people to keep themselves from dying something that employers shouldn't be forced to do?

[Thirdpower]

Are the businesses willing to accept responsibility and accountability for the safety of their employees when traveling to and from work?

Does the Brady Campaign think this decision will actually stop anyone who wants to shoot up their workplace from doing so?

[snaggster]

Paying for street parking is always an option if one feels the need to have a gun in the car. The employer should not have to accept guns on his property.

[KRob]

I don't know where you live, but that is far from the case. In several places where I've worked, including where I work now, there is no street parking. There is no street parking around any of the factories I've ever seen.

Anti-gun people always have these sort of flippant answers for our very reasonable objects.

An employer should no more be able to forbid me from carrying my gun than from carrying my wallet or wearing a coat.

[DMeadows]

If an employer has a "no-gun" policy, then they should truly guarantee a gun-free space. That means all entry points secured with metal detectors or other methods to keep guns out. And armed guards to deal with an active shooter attempting to breach the entry security.

Otherwise, wouldn't you agree that the employer is not really guaranteeing the space against violence?

And, in that case, individuals are ethically right to be prepared for their own defense?

[Thirdpower]

It's "always an option"? Really? Care to provide evidence for that?

Care to answer my questions in the post you responded to?